F1 Season 2010 - Aerodynamic and Mechanical Updates - Version 3

AERODYNAMIC & MECHANICAL UPDATES 2010
INTRODUCTION Brawn BGP001
17th October 2010

Version 5
THE F1-FORECAST.COM AERODYNAMIC & MECHANICAL

TECHNICAL FILES UPDATES 2010
F1 Season 2010 | Dominique Madier

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 1
http://www.f1-forecast.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS F1 Season 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 8
2. GENERALITIES 9
2.1 2010 REGULATION CHANGES- 2009/2010 COMPARISON 9
2.2 2010 RULE CHANGES- ACCOMODATING LARGER FUEL TANKS 11
2.3 F-DUCTS: HOW DO THEY WORK ? 12
2.4 COOLING: OPTIONS FOR OUTLETS 20
2.5 THE END OF POD WING MOUNTED MIRRORS 33
2.6 RIDE HEIGHT: ALTERING BETWEEN QUALIFYING AND RACE 40
2.7 FRONT WING BALLAST 46
2.8 USE OF RAPID PROTOTYPING MATERIALS 47
2.9 BLOWN REAR WINGS: SEPERATING AND STALLING 49
2.10 ALL ABOUT BEAM WINGS 53
2.11 XTRAC GEAR BOX 55
2.12 COSWORTH FORMULA 1 V8 58
2.13 SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY DRIVES SUCCESS AT RED BULL RACING 63
2.14 SPLITTERS EXPLAINED 69
2.15 THE PULLROD PHENOMENOM 76
2.16 A GRIPPING TALE 82
2.17 RED BULL PULL ROD SUSPENSION: WHAT IS LOOKS LIKE HOW IT BENEFITS AERODYNAMICS 89
2.18 HOW LOW CAN YOU GO ? 98
2.19 MOVING PARTS 105
3. BAHRAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW 109

3.1 GENERALITIES 109
3.1.1 DIFFUSER OPENINGS 109
3.2 MCLAREN 111
3.3 RENAULT 117
3.4 FERRARI 118
3.5 RED BULL 123
3.6 WILLIAMS 125
3.7 MERCEDES 126
3.8 LOTUS 128
3.9 FORCE INDIA 130
4. AUSTRALIA TECHNICAL REVIEW 131

4.2 SAUBER 132
4.3 MERCEDES GP 133
4.4 FERRARI 134
4.5 MCLAREN 135
4.6 RED BULL RACING 138

4.7 RENAULT 139

4.8 FORCE INDIA 141
4.9 SAUBER 143
4.10 TORO ROSSO 144
4.11 VIRGIN 145
4.12 LOTUS 146
5. MALAYSIA TECHNICAL REVIEW 147

5.2 MCLAREN 148
5.3 MERCEDES 149
5.4 RED BULL 150
5.5 FERRARI 152
5.6 RENAULT 155
5.7 LOTUS 157
5.8 TORO ROSSO 158
6. CHINA TECHNICAL REVIEW 159

6.2 FERRARI 160
6.3 RED BULL 165
6.4 WILLIAMS 167
6.5 MERCEDES 168
6.6 RENAULT 170
6.7 TORO ROSSO 171
6.8 FORCE INDIA 172
7. SPAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW 173

7.2 RED BULL 174
7.3 MERCEDES 175
7.4 MCLAREN 180
7.5 FERRARI 183
7.6 VIRGIN 186
7.7 LOTUS 187
7.8 RENAULT 188
7.9 WILLIAMS 189
7.10 FORCE INDIA 190
8. MONACO TECHNICAL REVIEW 192

8.1.1 MONACO SET UP: THE MISCONCEPTION OF WHEELBASE 193
8.2 RED BULL 196
8.3 MCLAREN 198

8.4 FERRARI 200

8.5 RENAULT 202
8.6 MERCEDES 203
8.7 SAUBER 204
8.8 VIRGIN 205
8.9 FORCE INDIA 207
9. TURKEY TECHNICAL REVIEW 209

9.2 RED BULL 210
9.3 MERCEDES 215
9.4 MCLAREN 216
9.5 FERRARI 218
9.6 RENAULT 221
9.7 FORCE INDIA 222
9.8 LOTUS 223
10. CANADA TECHNICAL REVIEW 224

10.2 FERRARI 225
10.3 MCLAREN 227
10.4 RED BULL 227
10.5 RENAULT 228
10.6 WILLIAMS 231
10.7 SAUBER 232
10.8 LOTUS 233
11. EUROPE TECHNICAL REVIEW 234

11.1.1 DIFFUSERS 234
11.1.2 VANED DIFFUSERS 235
11.1.3 F-DUCTS 235
11.2 FERRARI 238
11.3 MCLAREN 242
11.4 RED BULL 243
11.5 RENAULT 246
11.6 MERCEDES 250
11.7 WILLIAMS 250
12. GREAT-BRITAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW 253

12.1.1 EXHAUST DRIVEN DIFFUSERS 253
12.1.2 RED BULL MAP-Q: THE SECRET TO THE TEAMS Q3 PACE 258

12.2 FERRARI 261

12.3 RED BULL 262
12.4 MCLAREN 263
12.5 WILLIAMS 271
13. GERMANY TECHNICAL REVIEW 272

13.1.1 AERO ELASTICITY RED BULLS FRONT WING 273
13.2 MCLAREN 279
13.3 MERCEDES 290
13.4 FERRARI 292
13.5 RED BULL 301
13.6 RENAULT 302
13.7 WILLIAMS 304
13.8 TORO ROSSO 305
13.9 LOTUS 306
13.10VIRGIN 306
14. HUNGARY TECHNICAL REVIEW 307

14.1.1 DEFLECTING BODYWORK 307
14.2 RED BULL 309
14.3 FERRARI 310
14.4 MCLAREN 311
14.5 RENAULT 312
14.6 MERCEDES 315
14.7 WILLIAMS 316
14.9 TORO ROSSO 319
14.10LOTUS 321
15. BELGIUM TECHNICAL REVIEW 322

15.1.1 REVISED FLOOR FLEX TEST 323
15.1.2 REVISED FRONT-WING FLEX TEST 323
15.2 MCLAREN 324
15.3 FERRARI 326
15.4 RED BULL 329
15.5 RENAULT 330
15.6 MERCEDES 332
16. ITALY TECHNICAL REVIEW 333

16.1.1 ADDITIONAL FLOOR LOAD TEST 334

16.1.2 NEW REGULATION - PLANK LENGTH 334

16.2 FERRARI 335
16.3 MCLAREN 336
16.4 RED BULL 338
16.5 RENAULT 339
16.6 WILLIAMS 341
16.7 MERCEDES 342
16.8 TORO ROSSO 343
16.9 SAUBER 344
16.10VIRGIN 345
16.11LOTUS 346
16.12HRT 347
17. SINGAPORE TECHNICAL REVIEW 348

17.2 MCLAREN 349
17.3 FERRARI 352
17.4 RED BULL 353
17.5 RENAULT 355
17.6 MERCEDES 356
17.7 WILLIAMS 357
17.8 TORO ROSSO 358
18. JAPAN TECHNICAL REVIEW 359

18.2 RED BULL 360
18.3 FERRARI 363
18.4 MCLAREN 364
18.5 RENAULT 374
18.6 WILLIAMS 375
18.7 SAUBER 377
18.9 VIRGIN 379

LIST OF UPDATES F1 Season 2010
LIST OF UPDATES
Version Pages Date Updates

th
1 116 pages 12 May 2010 Original document
2 165 pages 26th May 2010 Add 2.12 : Cosworth Formula 1 V8
Add 2.13 : Simulation Technology Drives Success at RBR
Add China Technical Review : Ferrari The floor
Add China Technical Review : Renault The diffuser
Add China Technical Review : Lotus Front Wing
Add Spain - Technical Review
Add Monaco - Technical Review
3 179 pages 7th June 2010 Add Turkey - Technical Review
4 302 pages 30th August 2010 Add 2.14 : Splitters Explained
Add 2.15 : The Pullrod Phenomenom
Add 2.16 : The Gripping Tale
Update Turkey Technical Review
Add Canada Technical Review
Add Europe Technical Review
Add Great-Britain Technical Review
Add Germany Technical Review
Add Hungary Technical Review
5 381 pages 17th October 2010 Add 2.17 : Red Bull Pull Rod Suspension
Add 2.18 : How Low Can You Go ?
Add 2.19 : Moving Parts
Add Belgium Technical Review
Add Italy Technical Review
Add Singapore Technical Review
Add Japan Technical Review

INTRODUCTION F1 Season 2010
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this new report of the series The Technical Files of F1-Forecast is to present some
aerodynamic and mechanical updates on the Formula 1 of the 2010 season.
The updates are mainly presented with pictures, drawings and comments coming from the web sites F1-
Technical.net, Formula1.com, the magazines Autosport, Race Engineering and the blog of Craig
Scarborough who is a freelance journalist/illustator who focusses on the technologies of F1.
Keep in mind that this report is just a compilation of articles coming from the references mentioned
above. More over, the objective of this report is not to be exhaustive, therefore some updates
implemented by F1 teams could be missing.
This report will be updated within the season 2010.
F1-Forecast wishes you a good reading.
Dominique Madier
Webmaster F1-Forecast
Montreal Canada 17th October 2010

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010
2. GENERALITIES
2.1 2010 REGULATION CHANGES- 2009/2010 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.
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.
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.

2.2 2010 RULE CHANGES- ACCOMODATING LARGER FUEL TANKS
As a result of the ban on refuelling, 2010 cars will almost certainly have longer wheelbases as designers
are forced to accommodate fuel tanks close to double the size of their predecessors'. One of the biggest
engineering challenges will be to minimise this increase in wheelbase - and to minimise the impact of any
increase. Moving the cockpit forward slightly and a shorter gearbox design are two possible options. A
third could see teams harking back to a concept not seen on the grid in over a decade. In 1998 Stewart's
Alan Jenkins and Arrows' John Barnard moved the oil tank from its then traditional position in the
gearbox casing (left car, red arrow) to a new location immediately behind the cockpit (middle drawing,
red arrow). This had the advantages of positioning the tank's weight near the car's centre of gravity, and
reducing the car's overall weight thanks to the need for shorter piping. And that's where the oil tank has
stayed, until now. Under the new rules, rather than housing the oil tank behind the newly-expanded fuel
tank (which would mean increasing the wheelbase), we could see it once more shifted rearwards, where
it can be housed with the gearbox without penalty.

2.3 F-DUCTS: HOW DO THEY WORK ?

[Source: Racecar Engineering Magazine with Craig Scarborough illustrations]
(April 20, 2010)
McLaren have found a clever loop hole in the 2010 regulations allowing them to stall the rear wing at
high speed, Racecar looks at how they may have achieved this, and why it provides an advantage.
When McLaren's F-Duct system first appeared in pre-season testing it was hailed by many a a true stroke
of genius, a classic example of out-thinking the regulations. With the basic idea being that the driver is
able to alter the airflow over the rear wing, without infringing regulation 3.15 (below), and in doing so
gain a speed advantage on straights.
3.15 Aerodynamic influence:

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver
adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part
of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork
Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having
any degree of freedom)
Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car
This speed advantage appears to have given the team the upper hand at the Shanghai circuit, Racecar
decided to investigate the theory behind the new system.
Why is the F-Duct beneficial?
Basic wing theory

First we need to look at some basic aerodynamic theory regarding wing profiles and lift/drag ratios. At
the simplest level a wing generates downforce due to its profile accelerating airflow on its lower surface
in relation to the flow over the top surface. If flow is accelerated pressure drops, with the result being a
pressure differential between the upper and lower surface of the wing and thus a net downward force,
as illustrated below.

Flaps and slot gaps

If the angle of attack of a wing is increased it can ultimately 'stall' due to flow separation along the
trailing edge, with a resultant loss in downforce and consequently aerodynamic grip.
Stall.avi
Clic the above link to show a video of the lift generating wing stalling (the basic theory is the same for
a downforce generating racecar wing)
To get around this problem, dual element or slot-gap wings are used, these allow for some of the high
pressure flow from the top surface of the wing to bleed to the lower surface of the wing. This increases
the speed of the flow under the wing, increasing downforce and reducing the boundary flow separation.
(See below)
If you look at a modern F1 rear wing you can see this concept taken to the extreme, with multi-element
wings creating huge amounts of downforce, the downside being a significant drag penalty. However if
the flow over the 'flap' section of the wing can be stalled, the lift/drag ratio worsens, but the overall
result is a massive drop in the coefficient of lift, resulting in a net reduction in drag, hence the benefits in
relation to top speed. It should however be noted that it is only stalling the trailing edge flow that is
beneficial as opposed to stalling the entire wing.
Early solutions
Previously teams had contrived to create flexible wing sections the allowed the 'slot gap' to close up
under high aerodynamic loads, once this became evident to the governing bodies it was rapidly
outlawed. Wings are now subject to static load tests to ensure that they cannot flex. So if a team were
able to achieve a similar effect within the regulations, considerable straight-line performance gains could
be made. Racecarcar spoke to a source in F1 to find out exactly how significant these gains could be.
If you stall the flap on an F1-wing (in the wind tunnel) then the drag drops enough to calculate that the
top-speed of the car could be 3-5kph faster (we did this ten years ago) but the trick is doing it in a way
that's legal (well, not illegal). Wind tunnel engineers can do this by altering the slot-gap geometry and/or
changing parts to simulate flexing-on-the-track. It's very easy to demonstrate in a wind tunnel - just very
difficult to engineer it so that it's not illegal.

McLaren's solution
McLaren appear to have found a very neat solution for redirecting the airflow over the rear wing and
consequently allowing the flap to stall. Whilst they have been very tight lipped about the system, it is
most likely that the conduit from the front to rear of the car has a vent in the cockpit that can be blocked
by the drivers left leg, which is not in use on long straights. Blocking the vent could direct enough airflow
through the conduit to disrupt the flow over the rear flap and induce a stall. This approach is ingenious
for two key reasons :
By using the drivers leg to direct the flow, the regulations are not contravened regarding
movable areodynamic devices.
By incorporating the design into the monocoque it becomes very difficult for other teams to
copy the device, due to the fact monocoques have to be homologated and changes are very
expensive to make.
Below are some images of the most probable routing for the system:
(Illustrations by Craig Scarborough)
Picture of the Mclaren cockpit shows a clear channel running alongside the driver.

Additional pair of slot gaps in the upper rear wing element are fed by airflow from the duct that exits
from the 'Shark Fin' enigne cover

Illustration of the most likely routing for the duct

Whilst the exact workings of the system are impossible to judge, the above explanation is the most likely.
McLaren have managed to get a jump on their competition and a number of teams have already tested
their own interpretations of the system, although whether these will integrate as efficiently with their
existing aero packages remains to be seen.
MP4-25 - Rear wing

McLaren Snorkel: How it works

(March 11, 2010)

How its done
The snorkel on the top of the chassis feeds a duct passing down inside the footwell, its position is some
where around the pedals, it runs down alongside the brake pedal\footrest so as to avoid the mandatory
padding inside the cockpit. This duct has a hole in it to cool the driver inside the cockpit. However the
duct continues inside the chassis, past the fuel tank and up and over the airbox (probably passing by the
hatch fitted high up on the engine cover), then through the shark fin and into the rear wing flap.
When the driver places his foot\leg over the hole the flow is diverted into the rest of the duct and this
feeds the slot on the rear wing flap. There is enough airflow through the convoluted duct to disrupt the
airflow under the rear of the wing, effectively breaking up the flow around the wing. This is what F1
aerodynamicists term a stalled condition, although this is different to the term stall used in
aeronautical aerodynamics. In this stalled state, the strong spiralling flows coming off the wing, that
lead to the huge drag penalty a highly loaded F1 wing incurs, break up. With out these flows and
their resulting drag penalty, the car is able to get to a higher top speed, by around 3-4kph.
When the driver is ready to brake for the next corner, he releases foot\leg and the airflow passes back
into the cockpit and the rear wing flow reattaches, creating downforce and its attendant drag. In this
format the car can lap normally with its wings delivering maximum downforce.
This set up is legal as the rear wing slot in itself is legal (used by McLaren, BMW Sauber last year). There
is no specific working to prevent wing stalling in the rules. There are no moving aerodynamic parts,
except perhaps for the drivers foot\leg. Its a piece of interpretive genius, but perhaps as far removed
from the spirit of the rules as you can get.
What now
Of course now its deemed legal, teams can either formally protest it or adopt it themselves. Doing the
the latter is possible for most teams, as they have apertures in the footwell area to fit a snorkel, while
the shark fin and rear wing are easily created. But, finding a route for the duct out of the tub might
prove the headache, as the monocoque may not have any openings sufficiently large enough. This year
the monocoque is also is subject to homologation and hence cannot be altered until the 2011 season. Of
course where theres a will, theres a way, teams will not want to lose a straight line speed advantage.

2.4 COOLING: OPTIONS FOR OUTLETS

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog]
(April 10, 2010)
Since the changes in the bodywork rules for 2009, teams have struggled to tune their cooling within the
limits of what openings can be made in the cars sidepods. Tuning the cars cooling is always a
compromise, between outlet area and drag. the more outlet area the greater heat that can be evacuated
from within the sidepods. But this comes at the cost of drag, which will slow the cars lap times.
Heat is created by the engine, then ejected via convection through the radiators and radiation from the
engine itself, especially the exhausts. Additionally cooling needs to be provided for the gearbox oil and
hydraulics fluid (plus in 2009 the KERS hardware). The bodywork rules apply a no opening rules for three
areas of the sidepods; 1) either side of the cockpit opening, either side of the fuel tank and then from
their to a point near the rear wheels. Plus the teams can have a limited area to open around the rear
suspension and an equally restricted single opening for the exhaust pipe outlet. (see the full rules at the
bottom of the article).
Different panels alter the size of the coke bottle exit
Aside from the limited openings stated, the rules initially looked like the only area for cooling would be
the exit at the rear of the coke bottle shape. To this end several teams created removable panels to tune

the size of the exit, McLaren in particular created an effective solution to do this with the MP4-24.
However the downside of solely using the coke bottle exit, was also the primary reason teams switched
to chimneys and louvers in the years preceding the new rules. This makes the sidepods bulky as the air
from the radiators needs to be ducted all the way along the cars length. Plus the exit being in between
the rear wheels created drag and upsets the aerodynamics. Every team has oversized the apertures that
the suspension passes through up to the maximum allowable area, this provides a useful exit as does the
area the exhaust pipe which is oversized for the actual pipework the exhaust employs.
Panels either side of the cockpit are an effective cooling option
But closer reading of the rules shows there are other areas that can be exploited. Taking a wider view the
rules allow room for unrestricted openings ahead of and behind the restricted sidepod areas.
Additionally opening can be made inboard of these areas and an area up to ~50mm above the floor. We
soon saw teams create openings near the cockpit, being just above the radiators they are particularly
efficient, and with the raised cockpit sides being a add-on to the structure of the monocoque, quite easy
to retrospectively apply to the car. Teams have employed both vents and louvers in this area, in extreme
temperatures teams even have louvered and vented panels fitted to the same opening. Near this spot
the very front of the sidepods extend beyond the controlled zone and Both Force India and McLaren
have created openings across the front shoulder of the sidepod. Towards the rear, it was Red Bull that
found that the upright engine cover could act as a vent, as the engine cover tapers towards its end open-
able panels allow hot air to exit.

If the radiators extend far forwards enough, this opening can be used

Outlets on the spine of the engine cover are another option for Cooling
For local cooling rather than a major out many teams fit outlets along the lower edge of the sidepods,
normally this is actually part of the floor, BMW Sauber in particular have fitted long runs of louvers to
exploit this area.

Runs of louvers along the floor
Also Ferrari have exploited the rule on exhaust opening, while it demands a single opening of a
maximum size, the rules do not state how narrow it can be at any point. Thus Ferrari created an exhaust
pipe exit inline with the louvers, the four apertures joined by a small slot machined into the bodywork.
The slot joins the apertures and effectively makes them one opening, extending the area allowed over a
greater area. Critical for Ferrari who have a U bend in their exhaust pipe that would otherwise scorch
the bodywork.
One other point on cooling opening is that teams sometimes have larger openings on one side of the car
than the other. This is because the sidepods contain asymmetric cooler, one sidepod will also have an oil
cooler, taking up some of the space of the water radiator. Thus this side has greater outlet area to
maintain low oil temperatures.

MERCEDES

FERRARI

McLAREN

RED BULL

WILLIAMS

FORCE INDIA

SAUBER

COOLING RELATED BODYWORK RULES

3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes
defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous
curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm :
a) the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear
face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
b) the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face
of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
c) the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face
100mm above the reference plane.
d) the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face
675mm above the reference plane.
The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel
centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any
vertical surfaces which lie normal to the car centre line.
3.8.5 Once the relevant bodywork surfaces are defined in accordance with Article 3.8.4, apertures, any of
which may adjoin or overlap each other, may be added for the following purposes only :
- single apertures either side of the car centre line for the purpose of exhaust exits. These apertures may
have a combined area of no more than 50,000mm when projected onto the surface itself. No point on an
aperture may be more than 350mm from any other point on the aperture.
- apertures either side of the car centre line for the purpose of allowing suspension members and
driveshafts to protrude through the bodywork. No such aperture may have an area greater than 12,000
mm when projected onto the surface itself. No point on an aperture may be more than 200mm from any
other point on the aperture.

2.5 THE END OF POD WING MOUNTED MIRRORS

(April 2, 2010)
Ferrari were the first team to move the wing mirrors from the conventional spot near the cockpit to the
edge of the sidepods. Since then most teams have at least trialled the set up. From the next race in
China, this mirror location will be banned. Always a controversial part as many see their location and
more flexible mounting as hindrance to rear visibility. During their reign the FIA even introduced
scrutineering tests to ensure the driver has reasonable rear visibility. But all the problems associated
with these mirrors is worth it due to the beneficial aerodynamic location.
Outboard - podwing mounted mirror

Alternative - Mid placed Mirror

Conventional - cockpit mounted mirror
A wing mirrors on any vehicle is a bluff and unaerodynamic shape, from the CFD analysis Flow Around a
Wing Mirror you can read after how its wake is unsteady and turbulent. The FIA demands mirrors are
fitted with a reflective surface 150mm x 50mm this creates quite large surface to streamline. In a
conventional position this sends the wake directly downstream towards the rear wing, upsetting its
efficiency. Placing these outboard places the mirrors in the already turbulent area of the front wheel
wake. Thus the impact of the bluff mirror housing is reduced. With the change in Aero rules in 2009, the
mirror placement in this area allowed the pod wing to be taller and have a greater aero
influence. However even with the ban on the mirror locations the fin-like podwings will remain, as they
sit in a blind spot within the bodywork regulations.
It was Ferrari that first introduced the outboard mirror, on the launch version of the F2006. Initially the
mirrors were on their own arched mounting (itself acting as a small turning vane), as pod wings were not
universally adopted. Over the subsequent years many teams have adopted the mirrors. The following
year, Renault with their R27 placed the mirrors directly onto the pod wings. It was this later
development that visibility problems first really occurred, the pod wing needed additional support to
prevent is wobbling at high speed. At the time Renault Aerodynamicist, Dino Toso told me he believed
the mirrors would actually provide a better view, as the mirror was further from the driver, the vibration
would affect the view less than a mirror close to his eyeline. Toyota found a halfway house by using the
early Ferrari type mounting, but placed mid way between the cockpit and the edge fo the sidepod.

As other Aerodynamicists sought to reap the same gains, the drivers

often rebuked the new mirrors. Adrian Newey frequently brought
outboard mirrors ont he Red Bull, only for the drivers to opt for
visibility over performance. Toyota equally tried mirrors in all three
positions (cockpit, midway & outboard), Toyotas consultant Frank
Dernie told me All the drivers I have worked with have refused to
use them and asked for conventional ones.
Ferrari F2006 mirror Although theres a damning case for the visibility from outboard
mirrors, that is not to say that conventional mirrors are much
better. From on board shots we can often see the mirror resonating
at high speed, from the engine vibration and the harshness of the
ride. Obviously in this mode, the mirror cannot provide a decent
rear view.
This year Mercedes, Virgin, Renault, STR, Lotus all run conventional
positions. While McLaren did try pod wing mirrors at the last race
and elected not to run them. At the time McLaren stated We
made a decision after P3 to remove them. Not sure yet if theyll be
Renault R27 mirror making a comeback, but this may have been because of the
impending ban.
There is a performance loss with the re-siting of the mirrors for the
other teams, but this will be measured in no more than a tenth per
lap. the change is not likely to upset the teams order.
Flow around a wing mirror

[Source: Nabla Ltd Simulation Software and Consultancy]
A simplified car wing-mirror, is mounted on a flat plate in an open wind tunnel. The geometry is a half-
cylinder of diameter 20 cm with hemi-spherical free end. The far-field flow speed is 40 m/s. All
calculations were done using DES methods, using Spalart-Allmaras and turbulent energy transport
equation (Yoshizawa). The mesh size was approx. 2.4 million cells. Animation below shows pressure on
the mirror baseplate, with large scale shedding, a horseshoe vortex and wake details.
Mirror Surface pressure.mpg

Click on the link above to view the animation
Below are comparisons of velocities from LES simulation (black arrows) with LDA measurements
(coloured arrows, after A.M.K.P Taylor, Imperial College London). The direction and magnitude of the
velocities is predicted well both upstream and downstream of the mirror. The prediction of
reattachment in the wake is within 10% of the measured results.

The graph below compares static pressure measurements at points on the mirror surface with calculated
values using different LES models and meshes. A countour plot of the static pressure on the front of the
mirror is also shown below. The final image shows time averaged vortices.


The adjacent image shows the RMS of the pressure

fluctuations on the baseplate around the mirror. The
vortex shows strong vibrational motion, with the
strongest noise sources seen to originate from the
mirror trailing edges and reaching a maximum some
distance downstream in the wake. High surface
fluctuations are due to a combination of strong
shedding vortices from the trailing edge and
turbulence production in the shear layer between
the seperation bubble and the free stream.
Below shows Fourier transforms of pressure trace for a point on the back of the wing mirror. The
transformed trace is analogous to the noise produced at that point on the surface according the the
Lighthill hypothesis. The comparison is between experimental data (black), Spalart Allmaras (S-A, green)
and SGS turbulence energy transport DES (1eq, blue). Excellent agreement can be seen, especially for the
SA model up to nearly 4kHz.

2.6 RIDE HEIGHT: ALTERING BETWEEN QUALIFYING AND RACE

Ride height changes with fuel level
(February 21, 2010)
Pushrods: these are normally used to adjust ride height, adding shims between the carbon pushrod
and the metal top section
The ban on refuelling was originally envisaged as a method to liven up the show, forcing drivers to
overtake rather than wait for pitstops. Making the cars fuel tanks big enough to house the 170+ kg of
fuel for a race distance has been a well publicised challenge. But theres another facing the teams
brought in by the rule change. How the cars handling changes with the ever lightening fuel load.
Its been a long time since F1 cars had to run without refuelling. Since then the car have raced with 60-
80kg of fuel on board, burned it off over 20-30 laps and then take on another tankful. Now teams will
start with 170kg of fuel and burn it off over the course of the entire race. With F1 cars dry weight just
610Kg this is now a substantial proportion of the cars weight. This extra weight will press down on the
cars suspension pushing it closer to the ground. Thus the cars ride height will alter considerably from the

start of the through to the end. Ride height is critical for two reasons; the overriding issue is
aerodynamic. Firstly the front wing and diffuser work in ground effect, so they work better the closer to
the ground they get. Thus the wings will work better at the start of the race and diminish as the fuel load
lightens. Secondly ground clearance, the plank and titanium skid blocks will be prone to wearing when
the car is heavy, excessive wear on the skid blocks will render the car illegal in post race scrutineering.
The teams will need to set the car up to work over a wide range of ride heights, this will mean
compromises somewhere, making the car better at high or low ride.
Making matters more complicated will be the return to low fuel final qualifying, the cars wil enter Parc
Ferm on Saturday all but empty, then they will be fully fuelled before the race. Again do the teams
make their set up favour low fuel\high ride height qualify or go for heavy fuel low ride height for early
race pace, or pick a point somewhere in between? Every track will favour certain compromises. Monaco
is the classic example of a set up compromised towards qualifying, so teams will focus on the lighter fuel
settings, but remain conscious that plank wear can be high over the principalities bumps and kerbs.
One solution put forward was ride height adjustment made during the race. Since the ban on active
technologies in the nineties, the rules are clear, there can be no adjustment of the cars suspension while
it is moving, equally parc ferme rules prevent any changes between qualifying and the race. But teams
could have a mechanic adjust the ride height during the pitstops.
This would be legal and feasible, as the pushrods or torsion bar mounting could be fitted with a quick
adjustment mechanism. Even within a sub 3 second pitstop, this could be completed accurately. But as
the car will start the race with qualifying (low fuel) ride height settings, this could not be adjusted until
the first pitstop, thus the opening stint would be compromised by the wring ride height. Of course the
balance of the race could then follow the ride height with the decreasing fuel load, but adjusting at the
second and subsequent stops.
How could this be done?

Teams generally adjust ride height with shims fitted to the pushrods. The pushrod is split between the
main shaft and the metal end fitting, by loosening the bolts that tie them together a shim can be added
into the gap. Thicker shims mean more ride height and the shims need to be added to each of the four
pushrods (two front two rear) to gain a balanced ride height. Adjusting via this method is impractical
during a rapid pit stop. The pushrods could have a threaded adjuster as used on the front wing flap, a
turn of the adjuster drops ride height by a fixed amount, this would be quicker to adjust, but still all four
relatively in accessible (during a hectic pitstop at least ) would be difficult.
More likely would be to rotate the fixed ends of the torsion bar springs, by fitting the torsion bars on
each axle to a common mechanism, they could be quickly adjusted by a single adjuster (two in total for
the car) accessible through the top of the chassis or gearbox. Although the latter would be still hard to
access shrouded by the rear wheels and rear wing, plus the associated wheel change and jack mechanics.


(April 1, 2010)
McLarens Martin Whitmarsh spoke out at the Australian GP about the use of Ride Height Adjustments in
between the qualifying and the race. Suggesting that several teams, one of which was Red Bull had such
systems.
As previously explained (see article above) the ban on refuelling creates huge weight differences between
qualifying and the race (150kg), this alters ride height considerably (by F1 standards). Already running just
20-30mm off the ground the cars aerodynamics relies on a low ride height to create maximum
downforce. Equally having the ride too low height creates wear on the cars underbody skid-blocks set into
the plank, if the wear is excessive the car will be excluded from the results. Furthermore Parc Ferm rule
prevents the teams changing settings in between qualifying and the race, so teams need to find a
compromise somewhere between set up for the light Q fuel or heavy race fuel. However, if a team were
able to find a way to alter the ride height legally in between or indeed through the race then they could
have ideal set up for each segment of the weekend. We know teams have ride height adjusters that can
be adjusted at the pit stop, these tend not be used as they cannot be used until the first pit stop and with
only one stop being the nor for the opening races it appears to be a set up complication no one wants.
Suspension set up
F1 cars suspension tends to adopt similar formats both front & rear and across the teams. Ride height
and spring\damping is provided by a pushrod (or Pull rod for Red Bulls rear suspension, which is the
same but inverted) which operates a rocker, this rocker has levers operating the torsion bar spring,
damper and third (or heave) damper. Ride height it set by the angle of the torsion bar on its splines and
fine tuned by the shims in the pushrod. Ride height does get controlled by the heave damper, but
only when high aero loads compress the suspension at high speed, as the heave damper has some free
travel before it starts to add stiffen the suspension it cant be used for adjusting static ride height. The
individual wheel dampers do apply some pressure to the suspension when at rest, but arent commonly
used for setting ride height.

Mechanical solution
One solution put forward was a ratcheted system that keeps the ride height artificially low with a light
suspension load and unlocks when the car is more heavily fuelled. I find this harder to believe as the
suspension sees huge variance in load around the course of a lap, how it would identify the peak loads as
being a heavy fuel load compared to say a bump makes the system hard to predict. Unless a solution that
demands a suspension attitude that cannot be seen on track, such as raising both wheels to compress
the heave damper car beyond normal limits to release a mechanism, this could possibly be done legally
in the pit garage with the FIAs knowledge.
Repressurisation
Another solution that seems altogether more feasible is the use of the gas charging cylinder within the
damper. this cylinder normally acts to offset the motion of the damper rod inside the damper body.
Charged with nitrogen, this does create some preload inside the damper. Teams are apparently allowed

to recharge the nitrogen cylinder in Parc Ferm. Its believed that if the team were able to over-
pressurize the unit after qualifying with a low pressure, it would lengthen the damper, raise the ride
height in order to offset the race fuel load.
One additional scenario with this set up, is the gas cylinder could be set up with a bleed valve, to allow
a slow controlled pressure loss. This would allow the suspension to lower through the race and the fuel
is burned off.
On paper this appears to be a perfect solution to the problem.

Cooling
One further theory is that the dampers are sensitive to temperature, for example cooler dampers could
provide a lower ride height. Its possible to envisage a case where teams chill their dampers, again
possibly the gas cylinder to reduce the volume of the gas to shorten the dmaper and lower the ride
height before qualifying. Then as the unit returns to ambient temperature the pressure increases and
raises the ride height ready for the race.
Over the course fo the Malaysian GP, we can expect to hear a lot of fuss about whether these solutions
are being used.
However the potential of changing ride height for just the critical 3mm difference in between Q and the
Race remains a technical challenge, but one well worth exploiting.
It is rumoured there are three possible solutions, although there may be more we have not heard of.

2.7 FRONT WING BALLAST

(March 25, 2010)
Despite the narrow front tyres teams are still aiming for a lot of weight at the front of the car. Slabs of
ballast in the front wing are a popular method. Teams can run over 10Kg of tungsten in the front wing
profile and have nose assemblies so heavy two mechanics need to carry them. Last year Toyota even
used a trolley to help guide the heavy nose onto the car at pitstops. There are not any rules to limit the
weight of ballast in this area.

2.8 USE OF RAPID PROTOTYPING MATERIALS

(March 22, 2010)
Something noted on the cars over the opening race of the year was the presence of matt black aero
components on the cars. Not carbon fibre and not metal, the tell tale surface finish shows that teams
are using parts manufactured in special resin produced in 3D printers via the technique of rapid
prototyping.
RP brake duct scoop as seen on a car at the 2010 Bahrain GP
For some years Stereo Lithography (SLS) has been used at the factories to make parts for wind tunnel
models, casting moulds and mechanical mock ups. SLS is the process of making a 3D part by solidifying a
liquid or powdered resin, one a layer at a time. Even though hundreds of layers are required to make a
single component, the process is now more commonly termed rapid prototyping (RP). This creates a
solid 3D part often made with with a distinctive orangey coloured resin. By taking the data from the
teams CAD systems, RP allows parts to created accurately rapidly and also to a chosen scale. All without
recourse to other machining or hand working. While this technology is commonly seen at the factory,
the results had not been seen out on track as the resins were incapable of withstanding the stresses of
mechanical, aero or thermal loads. Subsequent development of better materials has now allowed the
teams to go from 3D CAD data direct to finished parts on the car. This short cuts the existing process to
make parts from patterns, moulds and finally the laying up of carbon fibre. Reducing the lead time for a
component from weeks to hours. Additionally the ability of RP to replicate the exact shape and
thickness of the part as it was designed allowed designers and production engineers to create even more
complex surfaces and wall thicknesses not easily created with carbon lay ups. Details such as wall
thickness tapering into sharp edges and corners. As result a RP component can open avenues to
designers not easily accessible with conventional manufacturing techniques.

Teams are increasingly using RP (rapid prototyping) materials on the race car itself. Most commonly for
the complex front brake duct scoops. I picked up on this when Red Bull first used them in 2006. In
Bahrain 2010 several teams had the distinctive looking matt black ducts bolted to the front of their
cars. Although the duct is not a highly stressed part, it does have to meet the airflow head on and is
placed relatively near the front brakes, so when the car is at rest the heat will soon pass through to the
duct. thus the component does suffer some stress and heat. Red Bull using the Windform XT RP
material (Windform.it) are able to engineer a duct that copes with both the heat and loads seen by
these components. Windform XT is Carbon filled PA resin, which is not as strong as carbon fibre, so it
does not suit all structural parts. Previously the Red Bull used RP materials with an alumised coating to
provide thermal protection, the more durable XT material alleviates the need for this secondary process,
further enforcing the rapid element of RP.
More intricate vents have been bonded into the carbon fibre endplate
Lotus also appear to have used RP parts within their rear wing. On the rear wing endplate the stack of
louvers were not moulded into the carbon fibre, but rather made from RP material and bonded into the
endplate. This is the first evidence Ive seen of RPM being bonded to a carbon part. The benefit that the
profiles and edges can be far sharper in RP than Carbon fibre.
3DSystems_CS_Jordan_Motorsports.pdf
3DSystems_CS_Minardi_Motorsports.pdf
3DSystems_CS_RenaultF1.pdf

2.9 BLOWN REAR WINGS: SEPERATING AND STALLING

(March 4, 2010)
Renaults CFD shows how the flow passes around a multiple element rear wings
For an F1 car the rear wing creates around a third of the cars downforce. But running at high
speed the drag from the rear wing is tremendous. Anything that reduces the drag of the rear wing
will aid top speed. If this can be done in a non linear way, that is; high downforce\drag at lower
speeds increasing towards top speed and then less drag only at speeds where car is in a straight
line and doesnt need downforce, then laptimes will show an improvement.

A single element wing sees the flow separate (circle) at steep angles
As airflows over the surface of a wing it has a tendency to slow down and separate from the
wing. Particularly underneath the wing which runs at a lower pressure than the top surface. This
separation initially reduces efficiency by adding drag to the wing, before the airflow totally breaks up and
the wing stalls. When a wing stalls the wing loses most of its downforce and drag.
A single element wing will then stall, as the flow breaks up under the wing
The steeper a wings angle, the greater chance of separation. To combat this aerodynamicists need to
speed up the flow near the wings surface, to do this they split the wing into separate elements, this
creates a slot. Which sends high pressure air from above the wing through the slot, which then speeds
the local flow underneath the wing. The more slots the steeper the wing can run.
With a two element wing, flow passes through the slot to prevent seperation
In the nineties, teams were unlimited in the number of elements they could use. Slowly the rulemakers
sought to reduce the wings potential for downforce and reduced the number of elements (defined as
closed sections within the rules), initially to four then three and currently two. Modern rear wings are
made up to two elements, a main plane (the forward section of wing) and a flap (which sits behind
it). Thus the wing is intended only to have a single slot and hence only one place to speed up the flow
under the wing. However the rules are typically vague, thus a small 15cm section in the middle of the
wing is exempt from this rule, teams have been adding a slot in this area for several years now. This slot

is the same dimension on the front as it is on the back of the wing, so there has been no issues of legality
within the rules, most team run a wing of this configuration.
Last year BMW Sauber and McLaren ran wings with the narrow 15cm opening on the front of the wing,
but this inlet diverged to make a slot the full width of the rear wing (normally within the main
plane). This slot was aligned to send its airflow at an acute angle, roughly inline with the general flow
over the wing. Again this was deemed legal as the slot made the wing profile an open section only in
the middle of the wing, where as the outers spans remained a closed section albeit one with a U
shape. With this design the slot could allow the entire wing to be steeper and not just the geometry in
the middle 15cm of the wing. This year Williams have joined the group running these sorts of wings.
With a blown wing, the extra inlet\outlet creates a legal second slot
Again previously teams have sought to use the wing stalling to gain top speed (from the reduced
drag). By flexing the wings at higher speed, the wings move to create smaller slot gaps and this leads to
the wings stalling. The FIA has acted with both load tests and in the past few year slot gap separators to
prevent this practice. Slot gap separators are now mandated for the rear wing, and appear a plate fitted
around the profile of the two wing elements to prevent them moving.
The McLaren 2010 wing uses a slot in the flap (not the main plane), this time fed by the shark fin and an
opening above the drivers head. If the teams protests about its legality are true, then the issue is that
McLaren are using the slot to stall the wing.
A slot in the flap could break up the airflow and allow the wing to stall
This could be possible in several ways; one could be having the slot orientated differently to the airflow
over the wing, if it were at nearer right angles to the flow it could blow hard enough to disrupt the
airflow enough to stall the wing. Another solution might be that the slot blows at lower speed
maintaining a clean airflow over the wing, then at higher speed the slot chokes with the greater airflow
trying to pass through it, the slot no longer blowing stalls the wing.

These approaches would have to be tuned to have no effect at speeds lower than the top speed on the
straight, thus the wing would provide normal downforce until near top speed. Then near top speed the
flow through the slot would start disrupt the wings flow and stall the wing. The difficulty in getting this
tuning to work is whats given rise to the rumour about the driver operated snorkel duct on the McLaren.

2.10 ALL ABOUT BEAM WINGS

(February 21, 2010)
Mercedes: the beam wing is exposed and sits above the crash structure, allied to a small
supplementary wingletRenault: the Beam wing is mounted to the central pylon, that also supports the
top rear wing
An increasingly common feature this year has been the choice of an exposed beam wing design. The
beam wing is the single element wing that sits below the rear top wing. Normally this wing runs the full
span of the allowable 800mm rear wing width, but often is split into two by the rear crash structure. In
the rules the location of both the crash structure and beam wing are relatively fixed, the wing needs to
sit between 300-400mm high and only sport one element, while the crash structure needs to be no
higher than 400mm. Along the centre line of the car clearly they vie for the same space.

The beam wing acts both as a wing in its own right, as a device that turns the airflow upwards improving
the scavenging from the diffuser and the flow under the top rear wing. Recently, the increasing use of
pylons to take the loads from the top rear wing into the chassis (via the top of the gearbox case) means
that the structural demands of the beam wing are reduced, as it no longer has transfer the loads from
the top Rear wing via the endplates into the chassis. If you ever get to pick up a structural beam wing
you;d be surprised at just how heavy it is. Certainly not the piece of feather weight F1 bodywork youd
expect.
But since 2009 when Toyota realised that the beam wing neednt be compromised by the crash structure
and shaped the structure to pass under the wing, allowing its more potent underside to be fully exposed
to the airflow. In some respects Red bull followed this philosophy too, albeit the beam wing mounting
was still a relatively obstructive section mounded into the crash structure. This year several teams have
chosen to shape the crash structure to expose the beam wing. Although this does necessitate a more
complicated shape which in turn affects the structures efficiency, in terms of meeting the crash test and
adding extra weight.
In Renaults case the wing is supported by the same central strut that supports the rear wing, other teams
use smaller mounts beneath the beam wing. Lastly Virgin took a cue from their Acura LMP car and used a
swan neck mount that despite the tortuous load path, does provide less obstruction to the underside of
the wing.

2.11 XTRAC GEAR BOX

(March 22, 2010)
Xtrac Project 1044 Gearbox
Along with the Cosworth engine, the FIA have tendered for specification gearbox to be made cost
effectively available to all teams. The British firm Xtrac won the tender and hence have returned to F1 as
a complete transmission provider after an absence of over ten years. While the internals of the seamless
shift gearbox are still secret (aside from the presence of a twin selector shift mechanism) the external
details have been published through these pictures. Project 1044, as its known to Xtrac is was developed
with the assistance Dallara, who gave input onto the external features for installation, aerodynamics and
suspension. As the external case is used by both Hispania and Lotus we now have a clear idea of their
rear suspension installation. Largely conventional in its layout, all of the features are common to those
seen on other teams gearboxes. Despite the single specification of outer case, the gearboxes can be
machined slightly differently to accommadate the chassis designers exact suspension geometry.

Xtrac: The different mounting points for the rear suspension
Xtrac: The ancillaries are typical example of a conventional F1 gearbox

The aluminium case features cast mounting points for the; wishbones, Anti Roll Bar, torsion bars and
dampers. These are all highlighted in the attached image, although the suspension rocker linkage is
absent, but this is a team designed part, so it will vary slightly between the two teams. We could expect
that the teams have a heave damper mounted between the rockers and passing across the top of the
case, possibly in tandem with an inerter if the team have reached the stage where they have developed
a set up to incorporate the device.
In this bare guise Xtrac quote the complete units weight as approximately 40kg.
Further information on Xtrac is available at www.xtrac.com.

2.12 COSWORTH FORMULA 1 V8

[Source: Racecar Engineering]
The Cosworth CA2010 is the result of a unique

combination of expertise, experience and innovation -
the major elements that comprise the Cosworth factor.
The process of designing an F1 engine is shrouded in
secrecy in the ultra competitive world of Formula One.
That Cosworth, the leading independent supplier of F1
racing engines, is able to create competitive and affordable engines that conform to the sport's
regulations, completing the design, development and validation within just nine months is an
achievement that warrants further explanation.
Cosworth has a strong pedigree in Formula One. In 41 seasons Cosworth has developed 16 engine
families and raced 51 engine variants, all of which trace their design heritage back to the ancestor of all
modern F1 engines; the Cosworth DFV.
So what happens within the design offices of Cosworth to create a state of the art racing engine for
Formula One, and how has Cosworth been able to bring the CA2010 to life in such a short space of time?
As Lead Engineer James Allen explains, Cosworth's engineering heritage means the starting point is not a
blank sheet of paper.

"The 40 years that Cosworth has spent creating F1 engines means that we have a wealth of
understanding in terms of what to do and what not to do when piecing the various assemblies of a new
design together," he says. "The Cosworth heritage for our design teams is not the cars, drivers or
trophies from the 176 wins or 23 championships; it's the knowledge that has passed from engineer to
engineer over the decades." As James elaborates, the starting layout was completed relatively rapidly.
"When we start a new engine the first task is to piece together a foundation using existing assemblies to
meet the target requirements defined by either the regulations or the customer. Sometimes there is
plenty of scope for variation and sometimes we are extremely limited. For the CA2010 the foundation
began with the bore:stroke ratio and cylinder V' angle, from which we laid out the cylinder block, head,
timing gear and valve train. We knew it would need pneumatic springs and compliant gear train timing to
rev to 18k and our extensive library of combustion profiles enabled us to define combustion chamber
and piston crown shape pretty quickly."
This basic laying out process employs the Cosworth knowledge base to select the optimal methods and
designs first time. The fact that Cosworth "just knows" what sort of technologies are required is a result
of the understanding gained from the sixteen F1 engine families that have already been developed by
Cosworth.
Cosworth engineering projects in aerospace, mainstream automotive, or performance sailing all employ
lessons that have been learnt which allow Cosworth to "fast-forward" to the answer.
Modifications - making the power, economy and reliability
The next design phase is the crucial one for Cosworth's customers; ensuring that the engine delivers
maximum power, using minimal fuel for its 2,200 kilometre racing life. As James highlights, the technical
regulations on engine speed and fuel economy are driving development towards greener performance.
"Essentially the most straightforward way to develop a higher power output is to rev to higher speeds -
however this isn't an option and so for the CA2010 we have focused our development elsewhere," he
says. "One area has been ensuring that the cam shaft drive and valve control is suitably precise so that
we can deliver more power. Another has been to target transient fuelling and balancing the available
torque and engine response so that fuel is not consumed to produce power that cannot be used on the
track. In terms of ensuring reliability we have concentrated on those areas that endure the greatest
stress in the engine such as the gudgeon pin that links the piston to the connecting rod.

Simulation - predicting the performance
The design teams at Cosworth rely heavily on computer simulation to test their additions and
enhancements as they work toward a final solution. This method significantly reduces the cost and time
required by minimising the need for empirical investigation. But as James points out, this next step in the
design process at Cosworth is also optimised to minimise cost and time. "Because we have a
comprehensive understanding of the likely failure modes within an assembly and can model against our
archive of data from previous projects, we can discard a significant number of potential designs without
the need to simulate. Although simulation is an awful lot faster than manufacturing and testing every
design variant, it still takes time and that's time we can save using our targeted methods," he says.
Validation - confirming the performance
Having agreed a specification for manufacture, the design team work closely with Cosworth's test team
using the world leading transient dynamometers that are available at Cosworth's Northampton facility.
As James explains, the aim is to understand the effect of any changes and confirm the simulated results.
"It's hugely important for us to be able to carry out real world testing, to be as confident as possible that
the effect of each modification enhances engine performance as predicted," he adds. Iteration - if there's

more available, do it again Having learnt the lessons and understood the effects of the various
modifications, the question for the design team is "can we repeat the modificationand validation process
to deliver a better solution? The nature of the small detailed changes that we implement often has a
complex effect on the engine as a whole," says James. "We are always learning and this knowledge
opens new development paths for us to follow. Our ability to carry out rapid iteration takes advantage of
the result of each alteration to the working design."
Termination - knowing when to stop
Cosworth's experience is as important in completing a project as it is throughout the previous phases.

Knowing when to stop to ensure a solution stays on schedule and within budget is critical throughout the
various areas of Cosworth's business. The Cosworth CA2010 offers a model for the motive package for a
sustainable Formula One, where the temptation to engineer miniscule performance improvements at
colossal expense is resisted. "There is always more that we think can be done," explains Cosworth's
Technical
Director Bruce Wood. "That's part of why our design teams are successful. Understanding that a solution
to an engineering challenge is about more than pure performance is critical. Cost and schedule are

imperative, and while Formula One has always understood the time dimension, obtaining a sustainable
future demands that we expend just as much effort on cost. I'm very pleased to say that my teams at
Cosworth have done just that to deliver superb strong package for our teams."

2.13 SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY DRIVES SUCCESS AT RED BULL RACING

[Source: Racecar Engineering Tuesday, 1 December 2009]
It has been a good year for Red Bull Racing. The 2009
RB5 car seemed to have reached an optimal sweet spot
in its development. Steve Nevey, Business Development
Manager and Technical Consultant at Red Bull Racing
recently talked to us on the process of design and
development at Red Bull Racing, and the benefit that
simulation has had on the performance and safety of
their Formula-1 cars.
Red Bull Racing is a relative newcomer to the sport of F1. What is the history behind the team?
It's true, although Red Bull has been involved in other high adrenaline sports for some time, our
involvement as an F1 team owner is just a few years. The current Red Bull Racing operation has its
origins in the Stewart Grand Prix team, created by 3 times World Champion Sir Jackie Stewart OBE, back
in 1997. Since then the team has seen several ownerships, including campaigns as Stewart-Ford and
most recently Jaguar Racing. With the financial and marketing support of our Austrian parent company
Red Bull, Red Bull Racing was formed in 2005, and with our new Chief Technical Officer Adrian Newey,
we set about to create the radical transformation in both the team and car that you see today.
What is the nature of your Technical Supply Partnership with MSC.Software?
The use of simulation technology plays a key role in F1 development, and is especially significant in
today's environment of reduced budgets and limited testing opportunities. MSC.Software has been a
Technical Supply Partner through the entire history of the team, since the first creation of the Stewart
Grand Prix team in 1997. Today, Red Bull Racing mainly use the latest MD (multi-discipline) versions of
MSC's Nastran and Adams products. MD Nastran is a general purpose Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
solution. Our typical applications are linear and non-linear statics, frequency and vibration, and impact
dynamics. Of particular value is the functionality for analysing the composite materials which form a
large part of the chassis and structural components of the RB5 car. Set-up is also critical to on-track
performance, so we also use MD Adams to simulate and optimise the dynamic behaviour of the
mechanical assemblies in areas such as steering & suspension.

Why did you select MSC.Software as your simulation partner?
The initial interest was in the analysis of composite materials, for both the performance and safety
aspects of the car's design. In 1997, the Stewart Grand Prix team took the decision to move to 100%
computer aided design & engineering (CAD/CAE). At that time, MSC's Nastran and Patran/Laminate
Modeller products already had an advanced composites analysis capability, and as the established
market leader in related areas such as aircraft & space industries, MSC was the natural choice of partner.
MSC's subsequent acquisition of MDI brought the Adams suite of tools into the portfolio, allowing us to
also simulate the vehicles mechanical systems, and to generate more accurate set-up data and structural
loadings. Both products are considered as industry standards, and we now use them under a token
licence system, allowing maximum flexibility of availability against demand.
Can you explain more about your design process. How do you start to design an F1 car?
The design process begins with the study of the FIA rules and their changes in the next season. Rule
changes have a levelling effect across the teams, so like all of the teams we always look to use innovative
design interpretation to gain advantage. A good example was the double-diffuser which appeared at the
start of the 2009 season on the cars of Brawn GP, Toyota, and Williams. This design change provided a
brief, but significant incremental advantage, which the other teams of course worked quickly to re-
address. Although, individual aspects of the design, such as the diffuser, can have influence on
performance, it is clear that an overall design approach is needed for a truly competitive car. This
includes a complex mix of structural, aerodynamic, power, mechanical grip, and set-up considerations,
all working together to create the optimum configuration. Of course it's not a static environment, new
developments are introduced for virtually every race throughout the season, and our engineering teams
need to be able to design, simulate, and manufacture new components and systems much more rapidly
than is typical in a commercial production environment.

Is the engine the starting point for the vehicle development?
Yes, the engine is at the heart of the car. This is actually one of the few parts we don't design &
manufacture ourselves - the RB5 is powered by an aluminium 2400cc V8 engine supplied by Renault. The
transmission is created around the engine and a 7-speed gearbox, itself a highly stressed structural
component which takes the connections and loads directly from the rear suspension. It is around these
fixed points that we then design the chassis, both from a structural and aerodynamic perspective. Both
aspects affect important considerations such as structural loadings, particularly the huge down-forces
generated by the aerodynamic components, cooling, and weight distribution. Weight and stiffness are
critical characteristics of a successful F1 car, and the challenge is to optimise these characteristics in a
harmonious overall blend of all aspects of the design.
To what extent do CAD/CAE integrate with each other, and your overall manufacturing process?
Our design and simulation processes always run always in parallel with our production and testing
operation. The basic design starts with a CAD model; for this we use the NX suite from Seimens PLM
Software. From there the native geometry is passed directly to Patran, the pre-processor of the CAE
process, in order to create a simulation model. We strive to simulate each aspect of the car as faithfully
as possible, both in terms of its geometry and the physics of its properties and loading, so direct
geometry transfer enables a quick and accurate base for the Finite Element mesh. Patran is also used to
complete the material specification, including the composite lay-ups, and apply the boundary conditions
and loadings. Advances in software technology have given us the opportunity to create increasingly large
and physically complex simulation models, so a hardware configuration capable of efficient throughput
of these models is also an important consideration.

So which hardware systems do you use?
Our partners for computer hardware are HP and IBM. Our CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) models
are usually the most computationally expensive, so for these we typically use an IBM Blade cluster
system, with several thousand AMD processors. Cluster efficiency is controlled by automated scheduling
and management software from Platform Computing. Both hardware suppliers work with MSC to ensure
that the Nastran and Adams products are also tuned for optimal computational performance on their
systems.
And how do you organize the computations?
We have a simulation database, in which all computations are arranged and stored. This is both for
efficiency and quality assurance, ensuring that each simulation is efficiently managed and auditable to
the appropriate input sources and output results. In this way we are able to quickly interpret the findings
of our simulations, and are confident of the integrity of the data.
How do many computation engineers work in your team?
We have recently increased the strength of our team, and currently about 20 people are involved in the
design and simulation process. This was another reason why we changed the way we manage MSC's
products from single stand-alone licences to the MasterKey token system. We now use the flexibility of
the token-based system to allow us to optimise the use of each of the software tools as the different
demands of each stage require.

So how do you see the value of simulation in F1, and in particular at Red Bull Racing, today?
It's always been valuable. Compared to virtual simulation, physical tests are expensive to set up and run,
and we are simply unable to test the quantity and variation of design scenarios which simulation easily
allows. However the value has never been higher than today, for several reasons. Driver safety is a
fundamental consideration, and all new chassis designs require FIA certification against specified crash
scenarios for front, rear and side impact. Physical tests are still used, but up-front simulation of each
crash scenario means that the successful test certification is all but guaranteed. Also, this season, on
track testing is restricted to the two Friday race weekend sessions, leaving little time to interpret results,
and to design and manufacture new components. Simulation is available to us through the season, and
has therefore taken over as our main opportunity to create and test new designs, and to assess
performance and reliability.
What about the set-up configuration. How does simulation help here?
The configuration of the car for individual races, and even specific racing conditions or drivers, is also
highly simulated. About 10 MByte of data is generated by 160 sensors mounted on the cars, and a
mobile monitoring area transmits on-track data to both Renault and Red Bull Racing engineers, both
track-side and back at headquarters. The data is used as real-time monitoring, and is also processed
through test-rig and simulation models in order to provide timely parametric input to enhance the racing
set-up. The ability to simulate a range of alternative set-up parameters, and feed this back to our race
engineers is invaluable. All else being equal, a great set-up can win or lose a race.

So with all of the current simulation capability available to you, where do you see potential for further
advancement?
The use of composite materials continues to dominate much of the F1 car, and although the
computational modelling is already sophisticated, further improvements in defining lay-ups, representing
material performance, and modelling failure analysis are anticipated over the coming seasons. Multi-
physics or multi-discipline simulation is another important area in which we anticipate further progress.
Using MSCs latest MD (multi-discipline) software versions of Nastran and Adams, we already combine
mechanism and deformable finite element simulations. We also increasingly use aerodynamic output
directly from CFD analysis to generate more accurate loads for the structural simulations. There are rule
restrictions to limit this, but multi-physics coupling of these effects allows us to legally enhance the
performance of deformable components, for example to optimise down-force and drag characteristics
for flexible wing components. Chaining the various analyses stages is time consuming and prone to error.
As well as removing these limitations, coupled multi-physics simulation also allows an iterative
interaction between the various behaviours, hence capturing more of the true physics into the
simulation model. There are others, but like the F1 sport, simulation technology moves quickly, so we
are confident that MSC's solutions will continue to keep pace with the unique demands of the sport.
Go behind the scenes to see the design, development and construction of a Formula One car. Red Bull
F1s business development manager, Steve Nevey, is your factory tour guide, giving you insight and
detailed information on the rarely seen procedures and processes which have helped build the teams
success in 2009.
Click here to see the video F1 Factory Tour Milton Keynes.avi.

2.14 SPLITTERS EXPLAINED

(August 9, 2010)
Although low down in a dark area of the car and
hidden behind bargeboards, the front splitter has
been a critical part of the F1 car for many years.
Known by many other terms, such as the shadow or
legality plate, T-tray or bib, Ill refer to this part as
the splitter.
Since 1983 F1 cars have needed a flat floor in-

between the front and rear wheels, then this floor
needed to be stepped since 1995. In the late
eighties when designers were slimming and raising
the nose of the cars, there was a need to create a
floor section under the front of the monocoque to
meet the flat bottom rules. The most obvious first
splitter was the Tyrrell 019 with its fully raised nose, since then the splitter has been more and more
exposed as teams seek to raise and narrow the chassis cross section for aerodynamic benefit.
A splitters regulatory role has been to form the flat bottom of the car and from an attachment for the
plank running along the length of the flat floor. Thus the splitter must form the flat floor at reference
plane level (the datum level where all bodywork measurements are, although the plank sits below this

level). The splitter must also shadow the plan profile of the monocoque, such that the monocoque
cannot be viewed from beneath the splitter.
However the need to have this bodywork forming the floor has been exploited and the splitter now
forms aerodynamic and chassis functions of its own. As the term suggests the splitter separates the
airflow passing under the raised nose between that which passes above and below the floor, equally its
boats bow shape above where it meets the monocoque also splits the airflow passing over the floor
between left to right. Air then spills off the upper surface of the splitter and some of this will make its
way under the floor and towards the splitter, thus the teams make use of this powerful flow to alter the
pressure distribution across the underfloor to further improve airflow through the diffuser. allied to the
fences, vortex generators and previously bargeboards, the splitter forms a critical role in the onset flow
for the diffuser.

Brawns 2009 ballasted splitter

Being mounted low and far forward, the splitter also forms the location for ballast. Depending on the
prevailing tyre and aerodynamic issues, teams can run as much as 50% of the cars weight on the front
axle. with a rear engine car, the only way to do this is the ballast the front of the car and the splitter has
been known to be made entirely from metal in order to maximise front end weight bias. Under the
current aero and tyres rules, weight is somewhat more rearwards and the splitter is less heavily loaded
with ballast
Deflection
In 2001 when the technical regulations demanded raised front wings (excluding the middle 50cm
section) teams found the raised front ride height, cost downforce. Attempts were made to artificially
lower the front wing when on track, both by flexing and by lowering front ride height. such is the
geometry of the car, that the car cannot achieve enough rake to lower the front ride height without
either excessive rear ride height or the splitter hitting the ground. A high rear ride height will cost rear
downforce and stability, so the splitter needed to be moved out of the way. Teams found that deflecting
the splitter upwards as it hits the track surface under braking allowed for lower ride heights. making the
splitter far less stiff than it needs to be allowed the splitter to ride up without undue wear to the plank
and skids which are measured in scrutineering for wear. Excessive wear to the skid block will bring
penalties for the teams and drivers.

Hinged splitters allow lower front ride heights
However the FIA became wise to this practice and along with other deflection tests carried out on the he
scrutineering rig, a test with push a hydraulic ram up from under the splitter was introduced. The car is
bolted to the rig and the ram applies 200Kg of pressure to the front edge of the splitter, only 5mm of
movement is allowed. this forced teams into running stiffer splitters and hence higher ride heights.

A hydraulic ram rises from the test rig to measure deflection to the floor
In order to regain the lower ride heights teams once again worked around the rules, by making the floors
deflect at loads higher than the 200kg test. by hinging the splitter at its rear mounting and then making
the front mounting a preloaded to 200kg. thus the floor will be be able to meet 200kg FIA test with little
movement, but at loads over 200kg the front mounting will start to deflect and allow upwards
movement for lower ride heights and more downforce. In Ferraris case this was a mounting with a small
coil spring to provide the resistance to the 200kg load. McLaren had a pre-buckled stay, acting like a leaf
spring between the floor and splitter. The justification for these very visible mechanical mounting was to
avoid damage to the now very heavily ballasted splitter, when running over kerbs and bumps etc.

Ferraris 2006 preloaded sprung splitter support
One of the issues to fall out from the technical interchange between McLaren Mike Coughlan and Ferrari
Nigel Stepney was Ferraris use of the splitter mounting. Knowing how Ferrari used the mounting allowed
McLaren to ask the FIA technical delegate Charlie whiting for permission to use such as a system. this
approach is a subtle workaround to a formal protest of another teams design, but ends up with the same
result, either acceptance or a clarification banning the design. This issue arose at the start of 2007 and by
the Spanish GP the teams were asked to remove deflecting splitter mounts, necessitating a redesign for
most if not all teams. some people within the sport suggest Ferrari performance advantage from the
previous few years was eroded by this rule change. since then teams run far stiffer splitter mountings
and although several teams have been asked to revise their mountings since then by Charlie whiting, it is
felt that there is little that can be done to deflect the splitter for performance benefit.

As you can see, FW Ride height is restricted by the splitter, unless the splitter deflects upwards
One of the explanations for the low wing ride height on the RB6 are suggested to be the splitter is
allowing lower ride height by deflecting. Certainly trackside images suggest the Red Bull and the Ferrari
are running significantly more rake in the set up at speed (i.e. nose down). Other teams suggest that this
level of rake and low front wing ride height cannot be achieved with normal rear ride heights. But do not
suggest how the car may be able to run that low. But the inference is that the splitter is in someway
deflecting to allow this. Ive not seen the detail of Red Bulls splitter mounting, but I doubt they are able
to deflect the splitter without any obvious compliance in its mounting or undue wear to the skid blocks.

On a side note, it was Coughlans assertion that the Ferrari splitter of 2007 was also being sprung to
create a mass damper effect, with mass dampers being banned the previous year.
Quote from Racecar-engineering.com One of the defences used by McLaren was that Stepney, the
former Ferrari employee, was whistle blowing something the court struggled to accept covered the
whole affair, but it did certainly have an effect at the Australian Grand Prix. Ferrari won the race, but
the FIA later outlawed the cars floor. McLaren contended that the Ferrari that won was illegal, and a
letter from Stepney to the FIA sent after the hearing revealed that it may well have been, as it was in
effect a mass damper. Such devices were banned last season as they were controversially deemed to
be a moveable aerodynamic device.
Stepney reveals in detail the exact workings of the floor that was used at the race: The front floor is
attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point. The most forward
support is a body with one compression spring and one tension spring inside which can be adjusted
according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also a skirt that seals the floor
to the chassis, which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help flexibility and reduce friction in the
system.
If the system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of development for other teams in
such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the
variable quantity of mass. The possible long-term consequences of such a system would be quite
substantial because the system is in a crude state of development.
The system detailed by Stepney allowed the F2007 to ride kerbs harder due to the 14-15mm deflection
at the leading edge of the floor, which means the Ferraris could straight line chicanes more than other
chassis. Front plank wear would also be reduced, allowing the car to run lower at the front, giving an
aerodynamic gain.
Stepney also explains the dynamic behaviour of the car, and the advantages the flexing floor gives:
From around 160-180km/h (100-112mph) the car is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the
floor, which multiplies up to nearly 19-20mm lower front wing height. The benefits in terms of ground
effects and efficiency would be gained all around, with components like turning vanes and front wings
at a reduced height relative to the ground.
2.15 THE PULLROD PHENOMENOM

[Source: racetechmag.com]
(by Peter Elleray - March 2010)






2.16 A GRIPPING TALE

[Source: racetechmag.com]
(by Pat Symonds - April 2010)







2.17 RED BULL PULL ROD SUSPENSION: WHAT IS LOOKS LIKE HOW IT
BENEFITS AERODYNAMICS
(October 10, 2010)
Adrian Neweys lateral thinking in 2009 gave rise to the modern iteration of pull rod rear suspension.
Although handicapping the double diffuser, the solution remained on the Red Bull cars for 2010. With
double diffusers being banned for next year, other teams are looking at the concept. Lotus Technical
director Mike Gascoyne has even cited the opportunity to exploit pull rod suspension as a reason for
going with Red Bull Technology for the supply of their 2011 gearbox. Pull rod may well be the buzz word
at the launch of many of the 2011 F1 cars.
Red Bull have been running a pull rod rear suspension since 2009, while not a new solution, no team had
run this set up for many years, as the aerodynamic demands of the rear diffuser drove designers to place
the spring and damper hardware up above the gearbox to create space for tunnels beneath the car.

F1 rear suspension
What the various suspension components are
F1 cars operate substantially similar suspension front and rear, the packaging varies each end but the
main components are the same. Double wishbones control the wheels attitude and from the outer end
of the wishbone a rod controls a rocker that then activates the various elements that control the
suspensions compliance. Firstly the springs are in the form of torsion bars, these are like straightened
coil springs and their resistance to twist provides the springing medium to support the cars mass. Then
the dampers, one for each wheel, these control the movement of the wheel as it raises and falls (bump
and droop). The antiroll bar controls the amount of weight transfer from one side of the car to the other.
Lastly the third spring, also known as a heave damper control the pitch movement (both wheel bump or
droop simultaneously) This is especially important to prevent the downforce load pressing the car
against the track and bottoming the car on the ground at high speed. Teams may also fit an inerter in this
position to offset the uncontrolled bounce of the tyres having an effect on the chassis.

Pushrod suspension: the high location creates free space either side of the gearbox for diffusers
When the rods operating the rockers start out low at the outboard end of the wishbone and rise up
towards the rocker, this is known as pushrod, as the rod pushes the rocker when the suspension is in
bump. Conversely when the rod falls from the upper wishbone to operate a low placed rocker, this is
known as Pull rod as the rod pulls the rocker.

Pullrod suspension: note the space freed up above the gearbox
Pull rod is nothing new, it first appeared in 1974 when Brabham designer Gordon Murray applied to the
design to the front of the BT44. Murray admitted he saw the idea in a Hill climb car and simply applied
his version of it to the F1 car. The alternative suspension designs of the time were either an outboard
spring\damper, which was un-aerodynamic and restricted damper movement to that of the wheel. Or
rocker arm suspension, with required large and heavy upper cantilever arms to operate an inboard
spring\damper. This was heavy and only provided a low ratio of wheel to damper movement, but was
moderately better aerodynamically. The pull rod employed light wishbones, placed very little structure
into the airflow and gave the opportunity to alter the rate and ratio of wheel to damper movement.
Murray subsequently turned Pullrod upside down to create the pushrod for the front suspension of the
1983 BT52.

Red Bulls Adoption of Pullrod

When the aero rules changed significantly for 2009, most teams adopted fairly conventional approaches
in the chassis design to accommodate the changes. One of the major aero changes was the switch to a
much smaller rear placed diffuser, The loss in potential downforce from the smaller diffuser, made the
rear wing performance a greater contributor to the cars total downforce.
As intended the single diffuser freed up space around the gearbox and made the rear wing more
critical
Neweys thinking for the RB5 was to create a low-line rear end, by placing the differential unusually low
and switching from pushrods to pull rods. With the smaller diffuser runnels and moreover the tunnels
starting as far back as the rear axle line, well behind the main body of the gearbox. This gave Newey the
space to package the pull rod hardware and not interfere with the diffusers tunnels. As a result the
airflow over the top of the gearbox to the rear wing was far less obstructed by the pushrod operated
springs and dampers. This solution was clearly valid as the RB5 was the only car with a single deck
diffuser to challenge the Brawn cars. However it exactly the reason the Brawn was so fast, that undid
Neweys low-line rear end philosophy. As the Brawn had a Double Deck diffuser (DDD) this solution
found a loophole in the rules that created a secondary diffuser tunnel starting much further forwards
and rising much higher. Suddenly in the race to also exploit this loophole, Newey found his Pullrod set up
was occupying the exact same space that the DDD needed for the upper tunnels. Newey chose not to

design a completely new rear end, and compromised the design of his DDD within the constraints of his
pull rod suspension.
With a double diffuser the longer taller upper deck occupies space around the gearbox
For 2010 the car was designed with a DDD in mind, Newey was able to repackage the pull rod set up for
even larger tunnels. He said that the choice of Pullrod for 2010 was still not the obvious way to go, but
the team decided to stick with a proven pull rod rear end, rather than have to design an all new rear end.
Other teams also looked at the feasibility of a Pullrod rear end, However no other teams followed this
design path, with the exception of the Toro Rosso team who used the RB5 design in 2009 and simply
revised it for their 2010 car. For 2011 the DDD is banned, with revised wording in the technical
regulations outlawing the openings beneath the car to allow air to flow into the upper diffuser deck.
Thus again we will see teams consider the pull rod layout for better airflow to the rear wing.3

Which is better Push or Pull

In terms of their effectiveness as controlling the wheels, both are equal. In terms of effect on
aerodynamics each has its merits depending on the prevailing rules and trends. However both have
different benefits and demands on the chassis. Pullrod clearly provides a lower CofG, although access
can be an issue. In Red Bulls case they place the 3rd spring and inerter horizontally across the front of
the gearbox. This means one sits above and the other below the shaft connecting the engine to the
clutch. These can only be accessed when the gearbox is removed and are subject to a lot of heat.
Although Newey tells me that they do not suffer unduly because of this. One difference is in the load
passed through the wishbones.
Reaction forces (Red Arrows) mean pull rod placed higher loads on the upper wishbone
As per Newtons third law, the rod has to react to the force of the springs. This passes back from the
rocker to the mount on the wishbone. In pushrods case, this reaction force is in the opposite direction to
the force fed from the wheel into the chassis, the two offset each other. With Pullrod the force from the
rod and the wheel act in the same direction, this doubles the load in the upper wishbone and resultantly
in the mounting the gearbox. This can be accounted for design and weight of the final wishbone design.
However Pushrod also has its structural problem, the pushrod when the suspension in in bump (wheel

rising) the rod is in compression and would tend to bow outwards. The pushrod was the first suspension
component to have carbon fibre cladding for reinforcement, again design and weight is needed to offset
this load. Suspension experts point out that Pull rod suffers similar compression bending when the
suspension is in droop (wheels falling), but droop is considered less critical in wheel control, than bump.
Theres no one answer to which is best, you look at your design requirements and pick which solution
works, best. Next year the best car is not necessarily going to be the one with Pullrod rear suspension.
Pullrods at the front?
Minardis 2001 PS01 used a low nose and pull rod front suspension
This was a favoured design for many years, even after Murray innovated with the BT52. However
designers found they could slim the nose cross section by mounting the spring\dampers above the
drivers legs and no longer to each side of his shins. This improved access, even if it did compromise CofG
slightly. Then as the raised nose aerodynamic concept took hold, teams found the gains from a high
nose, offset the CofG gain of pull rod suspension. Arrows campaigned their A21 in 2000 with pull rod
front suspension, and latterly Minardi ran the PS01 with a relatively low nose in 2001. Each team
subsequently moved to a fully raised nose pushrod suspended car. Now the front of the chassis is raised
too high for a pull rod to work, the angle from the upper wishbone to the chassis is nearly horizontal.

This geometry meaning that almost no movement of the pull rod will occur as the suspension moves.
Making the set up structurally inefficient.

2.18 HOW LOW CAN YOU GO ?

(October 2010)







2.19 MOVING PARTS

(October 2010)




3. BAHRAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog] - (March 16, 2010)
[Source: Race Engineering Magazine]
[Source: F1-Technical.net]
[Source: Autosport Magazine]
[Source: Formula1.com]
As the much anticipated first race of the year, Bahrain did not offer much excitement in the race. Equally
the build up the legality of the McLaren rear wing did not deliver the row many were
expecting. However some technical developments did turn up for the Bahrain race and a smaller legality
row did emerge. Here we look at what was new and what was legal at Sakhir.
3.1 Generalities
3.1.1 Diffuser openings
Scrutineering was expected to be the start of a row over rear wings, but instead the FIA technical
delegates only found a one smaller issue the diffuser of two cars. Both McLaren and Mercedes new
diffusers were considered to be pushing the limit of the rules with the opening for the starter motors.
The rules provide for one opening in the diffuser for the starter motor shaft to pass through in order to
start the engine. Normally this opening is a necessary evil, as the teams need to start the engine and it
effectively puts a hole inside the diffuser, allowing pressure to transfer from the high pressure above the
diffuser into the low pressure region below it, costing some downforce. Last years some teams such as
Brawn put a tiny sprung flap over the hole to stop this pressure migration.

BAHRAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
Now these teams have sought to actually gain from the presence of this hole. By widening the hole to
form a wider slot, the hole can make the diffuser work like a two element wing. The airflow through the
slot allows the diffuser to be steeper and create more downforce. It was this advantage the scrutineers
sought to stop and have asked the teams redesign the parts before the next race. This is likely to cause a
small loss in downforce, but not an appreciable difference in on track performance.
The starter hole (yellow) is wider on the McLaren and Mercedes and allows some aerodynamic benefit

3.2 McLaren
As with most of the teams McLaren arrived with a car very close to the specification run during the last
days of testing. But with Bahrain being the first time the car can be officially scrutineered, this was the
chance to see of their clever rear wing would be legal. Although the wing proved to be within the
wording of the rules their diffuser fell foul of a loose interpretation of the diffuser regulations.
McLaren snorkel and rear wing
The duct runs from the snorkel to the rear wing flap
Throughout testing rumours circulated that McLaren were running a clever rear wing, that allowed the
driver to affect its aerodynamics to increase top speed. This was admitted over the course of the
weekend by Team principal Martin Whitmarsh, but only once the design had passed scrutineering.
What McLaren have done is to create a rear wing with a vent in the back of the flap, when air is blown
through this vent the rear wings aerodynamics stall which reduce both the downforce and drag the
wing creates.
This effect can be used on the straights to increase top speed with is largely governed by the amount of
drag the rear wing creates. In the past teams have done this with flexible bodywork which has been
outlawed by rules on flexible bodywork and load tests applied to all rear wings.
Air passes from the shark fin through the flap to the vent

McLarens design is ingenious as it used no moving mechanical parts, instead its left to the driver to
influence the aerodynamics by pressing his leg against an opening in a duct inside the cockpit. This duct
is fed by the snorkel on the top of the McLaren chassis and passes through the cockpit and out through
the shark fin to the rear wing flap. In normal running (i.e. around corners) the drivers leg is clear of the
duct and air passes inside the cockpit to cool the driver.
In the corners the duct blows air into the cockpit
On the straight the driver presses his leg against the duct and flow passes to the rear wing

As no flow passes to the rear wing vent the rear wing produces its normal amount of downforce to aid
cornering. However on long straights the driver can move his leg from the brake pedal and press it
against the opening in the duct, this sends the airflow from the snorkel through the duct to the rear wing
vent. This airflow disrupts and stalls the wing adding some 3-4mph (6kmh) to the cars top speed. As he
moves his leg from the duct to the brake pedal the airflow returns to the previous condition and the rear
wing gains downforce once more.
As the cars aerodynamic surfaces do not move to create the effect it is legal, as the rules only prohibits
moveable aerodynamic devices. Unless the other teams protest this design will remain legal and
therefore McLarens rivals will need to copy it in order to regain the advantage.
Finding space for the snorkel on the top of the chassis wont be a problem as all teams have access
panels in this area, but finding a route for the duct to exit the cockpit will be a greater issue as the
monocoques are homologated and changes cannot be made except for safety and reliability reasons.
Floor Detail
McLaren added these floor details (yellow) as part of the Barcelona update
McLaren ran a variety of new details on the MP4-25, which included this new duct in the floor. Sitting
just ahead of the tyre, this lets air pass from above to below the floor, which then passes the coved
section of florr beside the diffuser. The coved (ridged) section was first used on the RB5 and has been
copied by several teams. However so far no one has gone as far as McLaren in makign the top deck of

the diffuser reach up as far the full width of the beam wing. McLaren have even added a slot to this
section to keep the flow attached.
McLaren ran this vent with both a rear facing outlet and louvers
Additionally the team ran with different cooling outlets by the cockpit, some of these featured both an
rear facing outlet and louvers along its top and side surfaces.

Rear aero solutions
The rear of the new MP4-25 features various aerodynamic solutions that have been devised through
wind-tunnel testing and on-track work. At first glance it's the car's long wheelbase, with its long and
narrow gearbox, that catches the eye, but it's actually the airflow management at the back which is more
unusual. Like the Red Bull, the exhaust exits have been moved towards the rear of the car (large red
arrow), whilst air from the gearbox radiator, which has been cooled with the help of air carefully
channelled through the airbox (blue arrow), is also utilised for aerodynamic benefit. Directed towards
the top of the rear wing's lower section and the diffuser (small red arrows), it intentionally interferes
with airflow over these parts at certain speeds, causing them to stall. Another change to the design of
the MP4-25 is the unique central pillar (yellow area) on which the rear wing is mounted.

McLaren continue with snowplough design

McLaren Mercedes have copied the snowplough
that featured on the 2009 Williams contender.
As McLaren introduced it as of its first test with
the MP4/25, Williams dumped it in favour of
cleaner frontal aerodynamic.
The system itself is fairly simple in its operation
and effectively acts like a diffuser mounted
higher above the ground. Part of the airflow
under the nose is split left and right of the
plough, while everything that flows underneath
is slightly expanded, reducing its pressure and
therefore creating a suction effect of the car
towards the ground. The aerodynamics of it are
also similar to the nosecone of the Renault R29, but possibly a bit more efficient.
McLaren's new MP4-25 features a totally new front wing, although the endplates are derived from ones
that the team often tested but never raced with during the 2009 season.

3.3 Renault
Although announced, Renaults' new diffuser was quote a different design to that seen in testing. Since
its launch the R30 had a diffuser that also incorporated the exit from the sidepods, creating one very
large opening at the back of the car. What the team have now done is to split the two functions into
their own tunnels.
Thus the diffuser has a conventional lower deck, while the upper deck is now set back from the rear face
of the diffuser and the top of its tunnels are clearly visible. Then between this and beam wing the
sidepods are able to vent the heat from the engine and radiators. With this new shape, the size of the
diffuser is apparent probable the second largest to McLarens super diffuser.
Along with the new diffuser the opening for the starter motor shaft has been enlarged, not to the same
degree as McLaren or Mercedes, but the FI add look carefully at the design and decided no changes were
necessary.
Allied to the diffuser was the return of the complex wing seen briefly in testing. The full width cascade
elements appear to be floating above the lower wing and its endplates, however the illusion is created
by the endplate providing support from the back cascade.
New front wing

After having displayed their 2009 front wing on
the presented R30, the team ran a curvy front
wing during all winter testing, before
introducing this new spec at free practice in
Bahrain. While the base profile retains largely
the same shape, the cascade element now
features a much deeper spoon to catch more air
and push it upwards. The item also has extends
above the front wing endplate and in fact has
its own small endplate attached on the outer
edge of the panel.
Also interesting is the lower end of the front
wing endplate which sort of forms an extension
to the wing's elements. Renault is obviously aware of where they lost last year's development race, and
are now pushing heavily on front wing development.

3.4 Ferrari
Ferrari arrived in Bahrain with a car very similar to the one seen in testing, also their pace and
consistency seen in testing was matched in Sakhir. The only alteration to note on the car for the grand
prix was a revised cooling cover near the back of the sidepods.
This had three slots moulded into the cover near the exhaust pipe. While not a significant development,
No other team have an interpretation of the bodywork rules to create opening in this area.
As the rules brought in for 2009 enforced a simplified shape for the sidepods and with limited
openings. However Ferrari were allowed to run in this configuration so we can expect other team to be
able to place these sorts of vents into the sidepods. Even with these openings Ferrari suffered with the
heat in Bahrain and elected to change their engines before qualifying to ensure they had reliability.
Angled engine mounting
To create more room for a larger double diffuser, the F10 has its engine is mounted at a 3.5 degree angle
(1). As a result, the exhaust pipe vents are located nearer the front of the car (2) than before, creating
more space for a large chamber on the central diffuser. Interestingly there is a historical precedent for
this approach - back in 1970, Arrows designer Tony Southgate mounted the engine of the sophisticated
A2 at an angle of four degrees (bottom drawing).

Front suspension installation
Ferrari inerter visible through the hatch in the top of the chassis
Unusually for a teams media image, this shot shows the front inerter installation on the F10. What we
can see here is the car without its access panels, revealing how the team mount the inerter between the
front suspension rockers. An inerter is a simple device akin the Renault Mass Damper, pioneered initially
by McLaren. It consists of a weight that spins on a threaded rod as the suspension moves, in order to
balance out the bounce of the tyres. This creates a more consistent load at the contact patch and
resultingly better grip from the tyres. We can also the linkage in the steering column in the larger access
panel. While on the edge of the monocoque is a round adjuster for the torsion springs. This has been
reported as a ride height adjuster, but a similar pair of adjusters has been on the top of the Ferrari
moncooque for years. I suspect these are simply the same preload adjusters, re-sited to suit the V
nose.

New faired wheel

Ferrari kicked off the test with the new faired wheel seen on the last day of Jerez testing. This included a
new rear wheel shape with a distinctive stepped shape. While the front wheel retained the two
concentric fairings. These have been developed to stop overtly aerodynamically shaped wheels or
fitting the static wheel fairings used last year. This has effectively banned any form of bodywork from
sitting outside of the wheel. Ferrari have taken the stepped shape for the BBS rear wheel in order to
meet the minimum shape allowed for the wheel in the new rules. Thus creating the smallest opening for
aerodynamic benefit. While the new front wheel add-ons appear to be part of the wheel and not carbon
fibre add ons. This is to circumvent the rules banning bodywork from being outboard of the wheel ( -no
part of the car, other than those specifically defined in Articles 12.8.1 and 12.8.2, may obscure any part
of the wheel when viewed from the outside of the car towards the car centre line along the axis of the
wheel) and still meet the wording of homogenous material demanded for the wheel itself. So these
must be made of the same material as the wheel.
For the 2010 season the FIA have outlawed the carbon fibre wheel fairings that became so popular in
2009. In a move that may be seen as going against the spirit of the regulations (but which has been
approved by the FIA), Ferrari have instead incorporated an integral aero device (inset - yellow rings) into
the design of their wheel rim. The device is detachable (main drawing), but to be legal it is made from
the same material as the rim itself. As wheel rims have to be homologated and can't be changed during
the season, Ferrari's rivals will be unable to copy this.

Secured wheel nuts

The sight of an errant wheel from Fernando Alonso's
Renault bouncing across the track at the 2009
Hungarian Grand Prix, prompted the FIA to impose
new rules this season to ensure wheel nuts remain
fastened. Ferrari's solution has been to create an
entirely new wheel hub, which features a catch
either side of the nut that locks into position (see
inset) when the mechanic removes his tyre gun
following the wheel change.
Front wing
During the last pre-season test at Barcelona,
Ferrari introduced a new version of the F10's front
wing. When compared to the older version (inset),
we can see it features a tiny addition to the rear
of the endplate (1) and a new main profile with a
different flap which has a small endplate (2) on its
inner edge.

Exhaust comparison
To ensure the exhaust pipe vents as far away from the rear wing as possible, Ferrari have reverted to a
solution they used five seasons ago on the F2005. In contrast to the design of last year's car (see main
picture, black arrow), the pipes have been mounted so they'll vent nearer the front of the car, rather
than the back (see inset, black arrow).

3.5 Red Bull

Closely following their testing form, Red Bull were fast but lacked reliability. With problems both in
practice and then in the race costing Vettel the lead. This problem was initially thought to be a problem
with the new low line exhaust system. Red Bull have innovated by placing their exhaust exits low down
on the sidepods and blowing them over the floor and into the upper diffuser deck. This fast flowing
exhaust gas add some downforce to the diffuser, but cracks in the more vulnerable low placed pipework
was thought to be the cause for Vettel loss of power. It transpires that the problem was a faulty spark
plug, costing him a chance of a podium finish.
Higher gearbox positioning
Like Ferrari, Red Bull wanted more space for their double diffuser. Chief technical officer Adrian Newey's
simple solution was to elevate the position of the gearbox (see yellow highlighted area). The RB6's rear
suspension is now slightly higher off the ground than before. An additional benefit of this solution is that
the team have been able to keep the suspension's pull-rod configuration, since with its lower pick-up
points now higher, they don't interfere with the new central diffuser section.
New exhaust positioning

The exhausts on the RB6 have been
repositioned in Bahrain. Before the exits
were above the rear suspension's lower
wishbones (as on last year's car). Now they
are much lower, just inside the rear tyres.
This is designed to increase the efficiency of
the rear diffuser's side channels. However, it
could prove a cooling risk at the start or if
running at low speed (such as behind the
safety car), when the slower airflow over the
car will have less power to redirect the hot
air from the exhaust.

Optimum brake caliper position

While Red Bull have chosen a development
approach rather than a complete redesign, the
list of optimisations on the car is nearly endless.
One of the more interesting items is the location
of the brake calipers, constructed by Brembo in
Red Bull's case.
On both the front and rear wheels, the calipers

are positioned at the bottom end of the brake
discs, creating the lowest possible centre of
gravity for the wheels. While Honda have come
close to this in 2006, most teams have
compromised their approach by positioning the
pads more to the rear. This position was often necessary to provide enough cooling to the brakes, and it
is a particular achievement that Red Bull managed to design its brake system like this, at a time when the
brake system will be pushed harder than ever.
Where has the simplicity of the front wing gone?

One of the aims of last year's aerodynamic
regulation changes was to reduce the interest
in aerodynamic developing by limiting the
possible development areas, including the front
wing. The problem with F1 designers and their
teams is that they live for every single tenth,
and hence rather then stepping back, a
regulation change empowers them to look for
other solutions.
Red Bull's RB6 front wing for instance is a

development of the RB5 front wing. While
Newey traditionally designed cars with simple
front wing endplates, they team have taken it
so far that the endplates now feature curves and double venting holes.
The wing itself now features 2 slot gaps, the lower one certainly inspired by McLaren's front wing of
2008. The stacked element still consist of 2 combined small wings, providing a better solution for this car
than the curvaceous designs that Renault or McLaren have come up with.
One wonders how a front wing can become even more exotic...

3.6 Williams
Aside from Mercedes, Williams was probably the most changed car in Bahrain. Changes to the diffuser
and pod wings were seen in testing, as was their blown rear wing. This is a very different design to the
McLaren snorkel fed wing. Where as McLaren stall; the wing to gain downforce, the Williams wing
constantly blows air through a slot made in the back of the wing to increase downforce.
Wing of this design has been raced by McLaren and BMW Sauber in 2009. Which gets around the two
element rear wing rule, by using the 15cm wide free zone in the middle of the wing to create an
openThis nArrow opening diverges to create an exit the full width of the wing.
Having the additional airflow underneath the wing allow it run at a steeper angle without stalling to
create more downforce.
Also new at the rear of the car was a cooling duct set into the back of the engine cover, the tall
rectangular duct vents hot air from the engine bay and sidepods. As well as a neat row of five small
vanes spanning between the rear wing endplate and the diffuser. These both stiffen the two items and
allow the airflow to curve outwards behind the rear wheels.

3.7 Mercedes
A new nose leads to two pairs of strakes (yellow) and a cooling outlet near the cockpit
As the most changed car on the grid, Mercedes finally discarded their modified 2009 bodywork for
definitive 2010 designs. This was largely formed of a new diffuser and nose arrangement. The diffuser
was a typical 2010 double design and not the more aggressive one suggested in the press. Using a
narrow 50cm upper deck nearly linked to the beam wing, the lower deck did fall foul of the starter hole
issue that also affected McLaren.
At the front the changes are just as subtle, but still a major step forwards from the Brawn-esque launch
specification. The new nose is still a low swept bulbous affair, but the downforce producing strakes have
gone. While the two front wing mounts have been elongated to create a sort of turning vane.
Aiding the airflow back along the car from the new nose are two sets of strakes. Firstly along the top of
the chassis, where the V nose bulges start are a pair of long vertical strips, probably to prevent airflow
spilling off the top of the chassis and down the sides, the two angled strakes are added just in front of
the sidepod inlets.
Also controlling the airflow back along the car are vanes placed on the inside of the pod wings.
Probably purely for the heat in Bahrain were several cooling outlets, firstly to cool the driver a pair of
inlet scoops were fitted tot eh access holes on the sides of the chassis near the front suspension. Due to
the extreme curvature of the top of the Mercedes V nose, these access hatches cannot be added to
the top of the chassis, which is the conventional position.
The aid engine cooling there was a small outlet added atop the sidepod alongside the cockpit. These sit
just inside the exclusion area for sidepod openings and are effective as they are so close to the radiators.

Pyramid-shaped roll structure
A new solution on the Mercedes is this pyramid-shaped roll structure, which acts as an aero splitter
within the airbox, separating and accelerating the incoming airflow (double blue arrow). Usually the roll
structure simply follows the shape of the airbox, but Mercedes' design means the shape of the airbox
can be altered independantly, avoiding the need for a new crash test, should changes be deemed
necessary over the course of the season. The single blue arrow indicates a second air duct, while the red
arrow sho ws the mandatory hole that all cars must have in order to be able to crane them off the circuit
in the event of an accident.

3.8 Lotus
The new winglet (yellow) aids rear end downforce
Of all of the new teams Lotus were the sole new team to arrive with a new development and also proved
to be the only reliable new team in Bahrain. Aiding rear downforce was a mini winglet mounted a top
the rear wing.
This wing sits in a 15cm free area in the centre of the rear wing. Sporting a two element winglet its
probably works in two ways, firstly as a wing in its own right and secondly by creating a high pressure
region just above the inlet for the rear wing slot, making it more effective.
However like the other new teams Lotus were off the pace and need some 2s to match Toro Rossos
pace and reach the second qualifying session.

An extra wing to get more downforce

Lotus are currently restraining themselves to
develop a traditional aero package without
taking too much risks. Because the team has
quite some catching up to do, copying other
solutions is the easiest and quickest way to
move forward.
The new Bahrain package includes a new front
wing with an additional central element, copied
from previous Toyota and BMW Sauber cars.
Only in the central 15cm of the rear wing, it is
allowed to have more than 2 elements in the
rear wing, and so an additional element is added
to create drag or generally increase the
efficiency of the rear wing in that area.
Additionally, an extra slot gap is added in the lower element of the wing to prevent the lower airflow to
detach from the wing elements at higher speeds - or steeper angles of attack.

3.9 Force India
Force India had these complicated cooling outlets on the sidepods
Managing the Mercedes engine in the Bahrain heat, Force India introduced several cooling opening on
the car. The most unusual being the opening on the sidepods next to the cockpit. This is an area
exploited by many teams, with either louvers or a rear facing vent.
Force India used two of one and one of the other. By adding a louvered vent and separate louvers into
the same panel. Additionally the car has opening at the very front of the sidepods and additional
opening around the rear suspension.

AUSTRALIA TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
4. AUSTRALIA TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog] - (April 1, 2010)
4.1 Generalities
After the heat and bumps of Bahrain, the teams arrived in Melbourne with its public roads and rain. A
slower higher downforce track than Sakhir, the teams had been able to work on the smaller reliability
issues encountered in Round 1. So we saw a surprising number of new develop parts across the field, as
they turn their focus from reliability to performance.
Just as Bahrain provided technical controversy so too did Australia. Q quiet row is brewing over ride
height. Ride height is the gap between the ground the car, typically the lower it is the better the
aerodynamics work, however this year with no refuelling, teams are forced to qualify on light fuel and
start the race on heavy fuel. The weight difference of 150Kg makes the car want to sink down on its
springs. But the spring rates need to be set to cope with one weight and be compromised for all other
weights.
Parc Ferm prevents the teams changing spring or adjusting its suspension between qualifying and the
race, so the teams either accept the compromise or find a legal workaround. Its the opinion of many,
but vocally put forward by Martin Whitmarsh that some teams have found a workaround to the ride
height problem.
Most notably Red Bull who have qualified on pole twice and shown good race pace, but never appear to
have a car with excessive ride height. Quite how they do it if in fact they do at all, is not clear. Several
assumptions have been put forward; an automatic mechanical system, re-pressurising the dampers or
even cooling the dampers. Any of these methods could be possible and legal, but more of this story will
unfold over the coming races.

4.2 Sauber

4.3 Mercedes GP
The thin slot joining the two openings makes the double exit legal
After the changes in Bahrain there were few noticeable differences to the car for Australia. One small
detail was the team reacted to Ferraris interpretation of the holes allowed in the sidepods and added an
extra vent near the exhaust port. The rules actually demand a single hole, but as with Ferrari a thin cut
joins the exhaust outlet to the vent, creating a single opening.

4.4 Ferrari
Revised front wing
Ferrari have introduced a new aero package
for the F10 in Melbourne. The new front
wing has notably different endplates. The
outer small turning vanes are now more
straight (1) and lower, while the endplate
itself is more curved towards the outside (3)
at the rear to better direct airflow away
from the front tyres. With this new shape,
the vertical gurney flap (2) has been
reduced.
This sported a smaller vane on the footplate and some subtle reshaping of the endplate itself. These
parts are critical in setting the airflow up around the front tyre; small changes can end up making a big
difference to the airflow back along the car.

4.5 McLaren
With a revised diffuser at the FIAs request, McLaren altered their diffuser. By changing the large oval
hole in the middle of the for a smaller letter box shape opening, the team have met the FIA request for
specified size of hole. The resulting shape is still an aerodynamic advantage, acting as a slot to accelerate
the airflow out of the diffuser for more downforce.

One feature that appeared in practice were new rearview mirrors. In most other teams McLaren tried
them on the sidepod wings. This takes the turbulence trailing the mirror and moves it away from the rear
wing. With this set up many drivers commented that rear visibility is worse, but the tiny improvement in
laptime is something that the teams designers want to use.
These mirrors were just a test and were removed for qualifying and the race, the teams spokesperson
commenting the mirrors were just another one of those aero tweaks that was worth investigating!
adding McLaren were Not sure yet if they'll be making a comeback.

Choice of mirror locations for Melbourne
As McLaren set the car up for first practice, they appear to have new pod wings complete with
mirrors. This is an aerodynamically benefical location for the mirror, McLaren have been late to try this
set up out. Drivers do say the rearwards visibility is compromised, although there is a FIA static test for
the quality of the drivers rear view. Both types of mirrors are mounted with infrared tyre temperature
cameras, so we can expect to see the team to alternate between the options in free practice.
Revised front wing endplates

The stewards in Bahrain requested McLaren change
the profile of certain parts of their front wing
endplates (in yellow), to give previous sharp edges a
safer, more rounded shape. They have thus
introduced this revised solution in Australia, the
changes coming in an area that is very important in
controlling air vortices in front of the front tyres.

4.6 Red Bull Racing

With no developments evident, Red Bull continues to the set the pace. However their reliability is still
suspect as the problems at Vettels pitstop lead to the front wheel coming loose, costing the team a race
win. It appears the wheel nut was not tightened correctly and the wheel was able to move out of its
normal alignment, causing vibrations as it rubs on the brakes. Eventually the set up failed as Vettel tried
to brake.

4.7 Renault
Appearing with the second front wing in two races, Renault are pushing hard to catch up to the leaders.
Australia saw the team with a further revised front wing and diffuser. Their new front wing takes the
shaped cascade of the Bahrain wing and reshaped the vanes around it. Firstly the cascades endplate was
switched to an aerofoil profile and the vane beneath is curved with an S shape. These changes appear
to be part of the normal iterative process of shaping the front wing. Not just to add downforce but also
to make the front wing less changes to change is ride height and front steering.
At the rear the diffuser was slightly modified to meet the FIAs requirement son starter hole size. In
Bahrain the hole was relatively small and was a simpler less aerodynamically beneficial shape compared
to McLarens. To meet the revised rules, the team bonded a small section of carbon fibre in place of the
previous hole. The new piece filling in the hoe and providing a new regulation sized hole in its place.
The new version (left drawing)

features a different version of the top
flaps small endplate. As well as being
smaller, it has also been reshaped, and
is now wing shaped rather than square
in profile as previously (right drawing).
Robert Kubica tested this solution
during Friday practice and both he and
team mate Vitaly Petrov ran it during
Melbourne's qualifying and race.

A revolutionary double floor

Now that the diffusers have become so much
more important, the whole floor of the car has
a much increased importance towards the
efficiency of the whole car. Renault haven't
missed out on that aspect and have added a
double floor to its R30.
The team introduced a huge aerodynamic step

at Sepang, including new sidepod panels, barge
boards, a modified diffuser and a double
splitter. Apart from its normal function of
splitting air from in between the front wheels to
the left and right sidepod, the new device also
marks the beginning of a double floor. Right
above the reference plane is now an open area of about 3cm high. Looking closely at the image you can
also see that this floor space is extending under the side impact crash structures and under the whole
width of the sidepod. While it is not perfectly clear yet how this air channel is used, the diffuser update
that came with it suggests that this is used to feed on of the upper channels of the rear diffuser.
Just as with the underbody airflow, the stream in this channel will be accelerated due to the expansion
that happens in the diffuser. As such, air is sucked from the front of the channel, reducing drag at the
front while increasing downforce at the rear end of the car.

4.8 Force India

Another team pushing hard with chassis development is Force India. With their third generation of nose
cone and diffuser fitted for the Melbourne race weekend. Contrary to previous reports force Indias
diffuser was not revised for Australia.
The FIA did not request any changes to our diffuser before this race.
Amongst many other smaller changes the main visual differences were in the new nose cone, with
sported a wider spaced front wing mounting pylons, which were also deeper in profile to act as turning
vanes. The rules mandate a specified cross section for these vanes up to a certain height. Above this the
teams are relatively free to shape these pylons but cannot add other sections of bodywork.
At the rear the teams extreme diffuser had another change with the beam wing set up above it.
Previously two tandem wings were used each with a stepped profile to form the top of the double
diffuser set up. Now there is a beam wing with a tapered profile, and the forward beam wing truncated
to simply form the top of the diffuser and not reach out to the rear wing endplates. While the rest of the
diffuser remained largely the same, the team commented on the influence of the beam wing.
The beam wing is actually not that significant in the performance of the rear of the car, but just another
component in the development of the double diffuser concept, and something that obviously we are
trying to optimise.

Adjustable front wing flaps
Together with new wider central pillars, which are similar to those on the Mercedes, the Force India
drivers could use adjustable flaps (red arrow) for the first time in Australia in order to reduce the
understeer problems they endured in Bahrain.

4.9 Sauber
BMW Sauber surprised many people in Australia by unveiling their own version of McLarens F-duct, just
a race after it was confirmed to be legal. McLarens F-Duct is the snorkel\duct\rear wing set up that
allows the driver to stall the rear wing on the straight for greater top speed.
As Saubers system is a reaction to McLarens idea and developed long after the chassis was
homologated, their system places the duct in the sidepod front. Somehow this finds a route into the
cockpit, allowing the driver to close off the duct with his either knee or hand. Sauber already had a
complex rear wing with an extra slot moulded into the main plane. As with McLaren, their F-duct also
routes the airflow through the shark fin to the rear wing. The set up was tested in practice and was
removed for final practice sessions and the race. As McLaren have taken two years to develop their
solution, Sauber less mature design needs more time to develop.
BMW Sauber are the first team to introduce their

own version of McLaren's innovative F-duct system,
the speed of introduction helped by the fact that
they had already tried using a critical part of this
solution - a rear wing with a slot in it - at last years
Singapore race. That slot effectively creates a three-
element rear wing. However, there are notable
differences compared to the McLaren system. The
air directs on to the main section of the wing
(longer blue arrow and yellow highlighted area), not
the flap, whilst the 'F-duct' itself (smaller blue
arrow) is positioned on the sidepods, not on top of
the chassis like on the McLaren.

4.10 Toro Rosso

Few developments have been added to the STR5, for Melbourne a pair of small vanes were added to the
front bake duct to control the airflow coming off the front wing. These are less complex than ay other
teams solutions, but at least a sign the teams limited resources are reaping developments.

4.11 Virgin
In the rush to develop and build a car for the new season, while still trying to be cutting edge in its design
Virgin Racing have found a fault in their calculations. It transpires their fuel tank is too small; some
reports place the shortfall at over ten litres.
This remains the car cannot complete some race distances at full power. Technical Director Nick Wirth
cited two main regulation changes as leading to the teams problem. Firstly, the FIA revised the
allowable fuel density after the monocoque was signed off. Thus the team needed more volume of fuel
for the same power output; this needed the tank size to be larger. Secondly the FIA also demanded that
crash tests are completed with a full tank of fuel; this further robbed the now already too small tank of
more space as the monocoque was reinforced to accommodate the tests.
Although the rules demand a homologation process for the monocoque, preventing teams making major
revisions for performance gain, the rules do allow for the FIA to agree changes for safety and\or
reliability. Its under these provisos that the team can make the change. Thus the car will have to go to a
B specification, with a slightly longer wheelbase to accommodate the longer tank. This requires a
revision of the cars aerodynamics to reflect the new longer car.

4.12 Lotus
Lotus are pressing on with developments to the T127. For this race the team raced a new rear wing set
up, taking the upper rear wing & winglet from Bahrain and adding a new beam wing & winglet below
them. With the car still at an early stage of aero development, the team are seeking more downforce,
these parts should add some extra load to the rear tyres, but at the cost of some drag on the straights.
A part that was only tested in Melbourne were a pair of front turning vanes. Normally the Lotus uses two
small vanes on a T shaped central mounting. Their new vanes were larger and mounted individually to
the lower edge of the nose cone, somewhat similar to Ferraris newer vanes. These were tested on Friday
but did not appear for the race.

MALAYSIA TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
5. MALAYSIA TECHNICAL REVIEW

5.1 Generalities
Following on just one week after the Australian GP, the F1 Circus reconvened for Round 3 at Sepang in
Malaysia. After two very different races we had hoped that the Sepang circuit would be a comparative
test of teams on a representative track. However the weather interfered with a straightforward
weekend and a mixed up qualifying lead to a no clearer picture of how teams actually fare against each
other.
Malaysia did not deliver the same large number of technical developments as the previous two
races. Most teams ran a small number of the Bahrain cooling openings to cope with the slightly cooler
Malaysia temperatures. However the large number of race retirements did provide closer access to the
cars parked around the circuit, to see the elements not normally visible.
Technical dramas did not unfold around ride height changes as expected. It was a source of debate, but
continuing denials of any system are being put forward by Red Bull. With the FIA currently happy and no
team formally protesting this matter is likely to go away and be resolved in a later Technical Working
Group meeting.
One technical issue that was bubbling up in Australia and has continued here is the issue of mirrors. The
teams are increasingly opting for outboard mirrors mounted to the pod wings. While these are
aerodynamically efficient, they are believed to obstruct a good rear view. As a result the FIA have now
elected to ban this outboard mounting from the Spanish GP onwards. This will require; Ferrari, Red Bull,
Mercedes, Williams, Force India and HRT to design new mirror mounting before the Spanish race. This is
likely to cost the teams less than a tenth in pace. So no major upsets are expected as a result of this
ruling.

5.2 McLaren
Just to reinforce how complex an F1 car is, McLaren made 6 modifications to the MP4-25 this
weekend. According to team Principal Martin Whitmarsh these changes were worth 0.3s per lap,
however it appears as if alterations that were not visible were made. We did see the team continue to
run Flow-viz tests in Friday free practice suggesting some of the changes are underneath the car and not
visible. More changes are also in the pipeline with Whitmarsh confirming a similar step in pace for China
and the debut of a new suspension, which allows their ride height to be optimised in between the race
and qualifying.

5.3 Mercedes
While still awaiting its major update the team ran another iteration of the sidepod panel around the
exhaust. As opposed to the slimmer louvered panel in Australia, the Sepang version was enlarged to
enclose the exhausts. As one of the teams expected to develop an F-duct, this might be ready for China,
but team Principal Ross Brawn thought the Spanish GP was a more likely debut.
Revised rear bodywork
Here you can see how Mercedes have evolved the bodywork around the MGP-W01's exhausts. In
Melbourne (see inset) there was an additional gill linked to the exhaust opening (highlighted in blue),
which respected the single-opening rule. In Sepang they have modified the bodywork (see main drawing)
to create a wider opening around the exhaust to aid cooling. The team have also opened two small
windows at the point where the bodywork meets the car's floor (highlighted in blue).

5.4 Red Bull
Red Bull use the exhaust to blow in the diffuser via a small opening (yellow) for more downforce.
Again the team set the pace and finally reliability was beaten to achieve their seasons first race win. No
obvious developments appeared on the RB6, there were small revisions to the wheels and hubs to
prevent a repeat of the failure that lead to Vettels retirement in Australia. This involved the detailed
revisions to the drive pegs that are fixed into the wheel and the corresponding holes in the axle. It is the
fretting and eventual shearing of these drive pegs that prevented Vettels left front brake working in
Australia, as the wheel was no longer engaged to the hub and brakes.
We can at last clearly see the way the low line exhaust blows over the diffuser. Cleverly Adrian Newey
has opened up a window in the diffuser to allow some of the high speed exhaust gases to flow through
the upper deck of the diffuser. This improves flow through the diffuser leading to more downforce. By
blowing the exhaust along the bodywork and through the window into the diffuser, Newey has offset
some of the sensitivity that this set up would have created, if he had exited the exhaust directly into the
diffuser. Which would then have been sensitive to throttle position and engine revs. This solution may
be ripe for copying by other teams as they prepare major upgrade during the next phase in the season.

Front brake-rim attachment
In both the first two races Red Bull suffered problems with their front wheel upright's brake-rim
attachment - on Friday morning in Bahrain on Vettel's car, and on his again in Melbourne when the front-
left wheel came loose. For Malaysia the team have worked hard to avoid the problem, checking the
assembly of the components (hub, wheel nut and rim) after nearly every run. As you can see in the
drawing, Red Bull don't have the locking pins (arrow) in the hub plate but instead in the inside of the rim.

5.5 Ferrari
Ferrari came with two detail revisions to the F10, firstly the team fitted a new section to the floor ahead
of the rear wheels. This provided a slot to take airflow from above to below the floor, just ahead of the
front tyres. McLaren have had a similar part fitted to the car since the last winter tests. This is added to
the already complex treatment of the floor around the rear tyre. Ferrari has a serrated section leading to
a Red Bull-like upwards section of curved floor. All these details seek to improve flow around the wheel
and sealing the low pressure within the diffuser. This slot was not fitted for the race.
Secondly Alonso had a new windshield fitted to his car. Rather than the usual vertical plate of see-
through plastic, he had a moulded angled screen fitted to the top of the chassis. This probably helped
Alonso from being buffeted on Malaysias high speed straights.
New floor
Ferrari tested a new floor in Malaysia that included an opening in front of the rear tyres, something only
McLaren have had from the beginning of the season. Its purpose is to feed air to the side channel of the
rear diffuser in order to increase its efficiency. This solution was taken off the Ferrari on Saturday at
Sepang, but we will probably see it again in China. The team also introduced cooling vanes beside the
cockpit due to the hot conditions, but again these were not used on Saturday.

Forthcoming ban on outboard mirrors
Three races into the season the FIA have declared outboard mirrors too dangerous and have banned
them. The ban was to come in at the forthcoming Chinese Grand Prix, but after the teams complained of
time constraints, it will instead be introduced from May's Spanish race. Ferrari were the first team to
place their mirrors on the extremities of their car's sidepods back in 2006 (see drawing). Since then
several teams have designed similar solutions, and currently six - Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, BMW
Sauber, Force India and HRT - are using mirrors attached to the vertical turning vanes in front of the
sidepods. Mirrors don't usually have a good aerodynamic shape, but by putting them in the flow of air
coming from the front tyres - an area already disturbed by drag - their negative influence is reduced. The
difference they make is thought to be approximately half of one-tenth of a second per lap.


5.6 Renault
New Pod wings and bargeboard for Renault in Malaysia
Again we saw Renault as the best of the midfield teams and one which brings developments on a race by
race basis. For Malaysia the team brought new pod wings and bargeboards. These are a smaller gain
than those found with the new front and rear wings in Australia. The top section of pod wing is similar to
the old design , but the lower section curved inwards over the floor, taking a line close to that of the
undercut in the sidepods. Allied to the new bargeboard just inboard of the pod wing these parts aims
are twofold; firstly the flow around the side of the car, but probably more importantly they alter the
pressure distribution under the car, improving downforce from the diffuser.

A huge diffuser (yellow) is fed by a large opening under the floor aided by two longitudinal flaps.
Just as in Australia, it was Petrovs retirement that allowed the clearest views yet of the Renault complex
diffuser. Its never been clear since the Bahrain diffuser update, what the function was of the of two
upper diffuser exits, equally shots of Petrovs car being craned showed a longitudinal slot arrangement
under the car. It is now clear that the team have designed a diffuser with a split upper deck, effectively
making two pairs of exit on each side of the car above the normal diffuser.
This is akin to McLaren or Force Indias diffuser. As they seek to create the largest diffuser outlet, with
the steepest possible angle within the confines of the bodywork rules. So we can see two exits one
above and one below the beam wing, these are fed by a large opening under the car. This opening starts
between the engine and gearbox and creates such a large inlet, that the team have added this
longitudinal flap in the resulting hole to manage airflow up into the diffuser. To my knowledge this
approach is unique in F1 and must be a part of the Renaults early season pace.

5.7 Lotus
Developments at Lotus included a second test of the sharkfin rear bodywork. Mike Gascoyne told
automoto365.com the sharkfin is an ongoing development, but we presently have no plans to race it.
Then explaining its use he added It is intended to help rear downforce in yaw.
Mikes understanding of the device is that it straighten the airflow to the rear wing in high speed
corners. Whereas other teams feel it simply add some stability to the rear into corners.
Gascoyne also added that the team have new diffusers for this weekend, but they must be a subtle
reworking of the old one, as outwardly they are little different. The team are still on schedule for major
update at the Spanish GP.

5.8 Toro Rosso

Modified exhaust
To improve the cooling of the Toro Rosso in Malaysia's high temperatures, the team have modified the
bodywork around the exhausts. Unlike the exhaust used in Melbourne (see inset), the exhaust opening is
no longer visible from the side (see main drawing). This solution was also used in Bahrain.

CHINA TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
6. CHINA TECHNICAL REVIEW

6.1 Generalities
Shanghai hosted the fourth grand prix of the year and the third race interrupted by rain. Much like
Bahrain, China's circuit is a modern layout with few fast turns and instead being dominated by long
straights and slow complexes. Having the longest straight in F1, several teams unsurprisingly chose to
test their speed boosting F-duct rear wings at this race. But only Mercedes elected to run their wing in
the race.

6.2 Ferrari
A new vane was added to the splitter to control underbody airflow
As widely predicted Ferrari brought their initial development of McLarens F-duct to Shanghai. It was run
in Friday practice as a test of the components, however not all of the system was installed for the
test. So this was just an evaluation of the rear wing element and top bodywork. Thus Ferrari had an
inlet on top of the char fin to direct airflow into the rear wing flap. We can expect to see the full system
tested in Barcelona.
Ferrari also brought several changes to their car for China, all focused at improving the diffusers
performance.
Changes start at the front where the splitter under the raised nose was altered to a more complex vaned
arrangement. The splitter acts to direct airflow both above and below the floor, but the primary effect is
affecting the flow passing along the stepped underfloor before reaching the diffuser.
By adding a vane to the side of the splitter, the flow can that passes along the step can be better
controlled. Equally the diffuser was altered with the section that splits the upper and lower decks and
the fences either side of it being subtly changed. Above this area a ducted winglet was added above the
crash structure, as the vent for the gearbox oil cooler exits inside the duct, its purpose was probably to
improve airflow out of the oil cooler.

Aerodynamic revisions
In China Ferrari were the second team, after BMW Sauber, to introduce a system similar to McLaren's
solution to reduce rear wing drag and downforce on straights. Mercedes and Williams have also trialled
systems this weekend. Other changes on the Ferrari include a new underbody behind the front wing (1)
and a new double-decked floor (2) similar to the one used by Renault in Malaysia. The F10's diffuser also
has a revised central section. Compared to the McLaren, the only feature missing from the Ferrari is the
British team's 'F-duct', which allows the drivers to control the level of downforce generated by the rear
wing at high speeds. And instead of splitting the airbox in two like on the MP4-25, the F10 has two small
openings (3) similar to the ones on Force India's VJM03. Like on the McLaren, however, there are two
distinct airflows. One flows (bottom yellow line) to the top of the diffuser's leading edge (4) via a pipe.
The other (top yellow line) flows on to the rear wing flap (5), which features a slot like on the McLaren.
Fernando Alonso tested the items on Friday to collect data, which will be used to build a final version of
the solution for next month's Spanish Grand Prix.

Blown rear wing
In the first practice in China, Ferrari unveiled their new rear wing, which features a blown flap in a similar
manner to McLaren. Mclaren have infamously produced the F-Duct which uses a duct controlled by the
driver to alter airflow around the rear wing to stall it at high speed to gain more top speed. Is this an F-
Duct as used by McLaren, may be not.
Unlike the McLaren and Saubers set ups, the Ferrari solution does not appear to have the driver
interacting with the duct. Instead the wing is fed with airflow coming from an inlet high up on the
engine cover, well away from the drivers reach. It is possible that the there is additional ducting inside
the car that does allow the driver to control airflow through the duct. But so far no signs of a driver
controlled inlet around the cockpit are evident. It could be Ferraris set up uses pure aerodynamics to
affect the duct, by choking at high speed (safely well above the maximum corner speed).
Latest: Alonso to Autosport.com I had nothing inside the cockpit because the system is not complete.
We tested the engine cover to compare it with the standard one. I didnt notice anything. I guess there
will some new numbers from an aero point of view.

Although Ferrari's version of McLaren's rear aero package doesn't yet feature an interpretation of the
MP4-25's driver-controlled F-duct system, most of the new F10 components are very similar to the
British team's solution. Not only is air directed on to the rear wing's flap, which features a slot, but it also
flows on to the top of the diffuser's leading edge via a pipe (see red arrow). Fernando Alonso tested this
solution during Friday practice for the Chinese Grand Prix.


6.3 Red Bull
All new turning vanes (yellow) were races as well as a new front wing flap and endplate
A complete new front aero set up was introduced at Shanghai; a new front wing, endplates and turning
vanes, as well as new sidepod fins. Having used a complex multi section front wing since the RB5 was
launched last year, the new wing is far more straightforward. A large single element flap is now used
and allied to new endplates that feature a large cut out ion their sides to improve airflow around the
front wheel.
Attached to the nose cone were a pair of turning vanes, as Red Bull run such a high nose tip and raised
chassis, this leaves a lot of space above the controlled zone low down under the nose. So Red bull have
been able to fit very large vanes to the area to direct airflow around the centre of the car. Red Bulls
head of race engineering Ian Morgan xxclusively told: We decided it would provide aerodynamic
improvement to the car, They are not circuit specific and are part of our ongoing development
programme.
All of these changes may well have an influence on airflow under the car, so there is possibly some
changes the floor and diffuser, but Red Bull said they were happy to keep us guessing if any changes had
been made. But the team did add that other changes had been made and said
We have made some minor mechanical changes, but the main focus has been on the aerodynamics.

Front aero update
Red Bull introduced a modified front wing in China. Although it featured an altered flap, the most
interesting change was the addition of two turning vanes under the RB6's nose (see red arrow). The
vanes are similar in style to those run by Toyota last year, and they also feature on this year's Ferrari F10.
Sebastian Vettel tested the new front wing on Friday, but by Saturday Mark Webber was also running
with it.
Additional exhaust duct
In China Red Bull introduced a small vertical duct (see red arrow) to the rear of the RB6. This has been
designed to prevent the hot air from the exhaust blowing onto the rear tyres and to better direct the air
towards the diffuser's side channel.

6.4 Williams
Both an F-duct and small changes were brought to the FW32 this weekend. Their F-duct was only tried
briefly on one car Saturday morning. In the Williams system the driver controls a duct which passes to
the right of his seat up past the padded head restraint to the shark fin. The duct then feeds the slot into
he back face of the wing to stall the airflow when the driver engages the system on the
straight. Technical director Sam Michael said.
"We tested a stalling rear wing on Rubens car during the morning practice session, from which we
collected some useful data, but it's early R&D at this stage so we have taken the decision not to race it
this weekend.
However being such a complete system we might possibly see the system raced in Spain.
Other changes consisted of a new front wing. Largely following the same format as the previous wing,
the endplate hassle on for some small alterations. This now features several lips to aid airflow around
the front wheel.

6.5 Mercedes
The third of the F-duct debuts was the Mercedes system. As expected the team was secretive about its
design, so we are not clear if the arrangement so complete or like Ferrari this was a preparatory test of
the some of the components. As we are expecting a major change to the MGP W01 for the next race, it
might be that the complete F-duct needs components not as yet introduced to the car.
What we can see is that the rear wing flap gets its air feed from his main plane of the rear wing; this is
provided by a large hollow fin fitted between the two elements into his middle of the wing. The hollow
flap features two simple slots made into the back face of the element.
McLaren and Ferrari use curved slots to tailor the stall effect to suit the local airflow, which varies across
the span of the wing. Mercedes may have a clever way to route the airflow front he cockpit to the rear
wing, but this is not yet evident, it might be hidden in the rear wing endplates, but its most likely we will
see the full system explained in Barcelona.
Rumours abound as to what changes Mercedes are planing to their car for the next race. Its clear the
team do not have the rearward weight and aero bias the Bridgestone tyres need. This problem was
underlined by the chronic lack of traction and rear tyre wear experienced by Michael Schumachers
car. Somehow Rosberg is able to get a good performance from the car, but it is still handicapped by its
fundamental layout.
With restrictions on introducing new crash structures and monocoques, Mercedes are limited to
gearbox and suspension changes to alter the cars inherent weight distribution. Either having to push the
front or rear wheels forward. This can be done with either new wishbones or at the rear a shorter
gearbox to bring the engines mass towards the rear wheels. Either solution will have a major effect not
he cars aerodynamics so this will need to be revised to accommodate the changes.
Equally the team still needs to bring a major step the cars aero, as the main elements are still largely
based on the 2009 Brawn car. Mercedes have a lot to do over the next three weeks to prepare a near
"B-spec" car for Spain.

Modified rear wing
Mercedes have introduced a simpler, and more experimental version of McLaren's current rear wing
solution. Like on the Ferrari, there isn't an F-duct, and the air doesn't flow inside the engine cover fin.
Two small openings (1) feed airflow through an aero channel to two slots on the back of the flap (2). The
system has been tested by both drivers and is controlled by pressure sensors on both surfaces of the
wing.

6.6 Renault
Several developments were brought Shanghai, with a new front wing and floor. The floor wasnt tested
while the front wing, which features revised vanes on the endplate was tried but the team elected not to
race the development.

6.7 Toro Rosso
Toro Rossos upright failed near the top, taking with it the top wishbone, steering arm and tether
One of the most startling images of the weekend was the double front suspension failure on the Toro
Rosso in Fridays practice session. The STR5 suffered a failure to the front upright, which lead the same
failure on the opposite upright. An upright is the component that links the wishbones, pushrod and
steering to the front wheel via the stub axle.
It also mounts the brakes so not just the suspension forces, but also the immense braking forces are fed
through this small metal component. Being highly stressed teams work hard to use computer simulation
to predict the loads and ensure the finished metal components quality.
In Toro Rossos case the upright was from a new batch and untested on track. When the upright failed
near the top wishbone mount, the forces acting on the wheel immediately ripped the upright from the
carbon fibre wishbones, this in turn lead the same failure on the side leaving Buemi without any front
wheels. It was unfortunate that the failure occurred on the upright at the point below where the wheel
restraining tether is connected to the upright, having passed from the chassis through the top
wishbone. Thus the wheels were no longer restrained by the tether and flew off, one of which landed
outside the catch fencing in a public area, thankfully no one was struck the errant wheel.

6.8 Force India
A race before the ban Force India introduced new inboard mirror
Pre-empting the ban on outboard mirrors the team already had revised bodywork for China. Truncating
the sidepod fin and adding a mirror mounted on a short post to the vortex generators already fitted to
the cockpit sides.

SPAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
7. SPAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog] - (May 13, 2010)
7.1 Generalities
Five races into the season and we finally have a Grand Prix held near the teams bases, run on a
representative track and in good weather. Round 5 of the 2010 championship was held at the circuit de
Catalua in Spain.
Coming three weeks after the Chinese race and the Icelandic Ash cloud not withstanding, the teams
returned the cars to their respective factories for the first time since they departed for Bahrain.
Therefore Barcelona was the race with the most technical changes so far; major layout changes for two
teams, significant aero upgrades for other teams and a host of smaller updates up and down the grid.
With its numerous long and fast turns, long straight and lack of slow complexes, Barcelona is a track that
really tests the chassis. In particular the track is one that rewards aerodynamic efficiency, as it needs lots
of downforce for the fast turns, but the long straight will hurt teams running an excess of drag.
Equally the long straight suits cars with powerful engines, but that is a secondary demand, as we saw
Red Bull with their power deficit to Mercedes still produce the quickest laptime. Braking for the first turn
also tests brakes and Barcelona's track surface is also quite abrasive making it hard on tyres. Barcelona
tests nearly every facet of a formula1 car, part of the reason it is so popular for testing.

7.2 Red Bull

Red Bull further bolstered their early season pace with an aero upgrade in addition to the major changes
introduced in China. In Spain this consisted of a new front splitter, revised floor and changes around the
exhaust area. Additionally the team had their new wing mirrors, as the old ones were mounted
outboard. Their step up in pace is probably attributable to the new underfloor changes. Starting with the
splitter the airflow is revised both under and over the floor, with the section of floor ahead of the rear
wheels now sporting a slot, similar to McLarens and Ferrari solution. While just inboard of this area the
panelling around the exhaust has been smoothed out to improve the route of the exhaust gasses into
the diffuser.
Many observers are pointing to the exhaust driven diffuser as a key to the team pace, although the cars
generally benign aerodynamics suiting both qualifying and race conditions are as bigger factor. Yet still
these do require a suspension system that allows good control of the floors attitude, suggesting Red bull
do have innovations in this area that are not yet understood.

7.3 Mercedes
Moving the wheels forward (yellow) was the least complex option for Mercedes weight distribution
problem
Mercedes introduced this innovative roll structure and engine air inlet
After suffering since its launch with a forwards aero\weight bias, Mercedes finally had the upgrade to
resolve the W01 of its intrinsic problems. Having had too much load on the front tyres, the car had

fought excessive understeer from overloaded front tyres and excessive rear tyre wear through lack of
traction at the back wheels.
They have chosen to do this by the simplest method of shifting the front wheels forwards relative to the
chassis. While not as complex as new gearboxes or monocoques, this does involve a lot of other changes
to the car as their performance or the regulations demand it. Both the front wing and splitter need to
move forwards as the regulations use the front axle as a datum for their position. Then the front wing
pillars, bargeboards, pod fins and other aerodynamic parts need to accommodate the new front wheel
position.
Its the longer splitter that gives way most of the secrets of the wheelbase change. Firstly, the previously
vertical mount to support the front edge of the splitter is now angled forwards as it maintains the same
upper mounting to the monocoque, but now it has to reach forwards to steady the floor. This suggests
the wheelbase shift is in the region of 5cm and not the 10cm suggested by some media. Secondly the
splitter used to be a thick rectangular section to house the large slab of ballast, now the splitter is a thin
section, with the tungsten weights now limited to its central section.
If its the new wheelbase that improved the Mercedes form, it was the revised roll structure that caught
every ones attention. An evolution of the previous set up, with a tall central pillar and the engine air
inlets formed either side of the pillar. As its only the central fin that is structural and subject to crash
tests, the side scoops can be changed without having to crash test and re-homologate the monocoque.
so Mercedes have lowered the inlet snorkel and set it back from the leading edge of the pillar, creating a
long blade like fin that merges into the tail fin of the engine cover.
There will be two reasons for doing this, firstly improving the airflow to the rear wing due to the reduced
cross section ahead of it. But also for engine performance, this year with the longer fuel tanks teams
have had to make the snorkel feeding the air-box longer. There may be a horsepower benefit in having
shorter inlets. The two inlets and tail fin are now part of the air-box and removed as one piece. This
complex piece of bodywork bolts both the engine cover and to the inlet tray where the air-filter sits. All
other teams have separate air-boxes sitting inside the engine cover.

Revised airbox and roll structure
At the MGP W01's pre-season launch it became clear team principal Ross Brawn had managed to avoid
making its airbox design a structural part of the car's rollover protection - and was thus not hamstrung
on future developments by the FIA's rules which restrict chassis changes (bottom left inset, blue arrow).
Even before the season opener in Bahrain the team made a revision (top left inset, blue arrow). In Spain,
however, a dramatic change to the shape of the airbox (main picture) has been introduced, with its
intakes lower and further back. The rollover structure now has a narrow, knife-shaped leading edge. All
this should help clean up airflow over the engine cover and help boost the performance of the car's
'blown' rear wing.


Longer wheelbase
Mercedes have lengthened the wheelbase of the MGP W01 by approximately five centimetres. They
have done this by angling the suspension's front wishbones differently. They have also moved the front
wing forward, thus keeping the same gap between wing and tyre as required by the regulations. This
modification has altered the car's weight distribution, which should help reduce the chronic understeer
seen during the opening four races.

7.4 McLaren
McLarens new rear wing has three slots, both the usual slot, plus the blown and F-duct slots (arrowed),
as well as a new section within the diffuser (Yellow)

A raft of changes were applied the MP4-25 for Spain. The most influential and visible of these, were the
new front wing endplate rear wing and a new add-on to the diffuser. At the front the endplate is the
teams second iteration this year and somewhere between the complex multi vaned arrangement on the
launch car and the simpler vented version used since Bahrain. Now the endplate features three distinct
vents taking airflow from the outside to the inside, helping guide the airflow around the front tyre.
At the rear the F-duct rear wing has been revised with a new main plane and flap. In a similar set up to
that used in Monaco last year the main plane has its own narrow inlet at the front which feeds a full
width slot at the back of the wing. This is not related to the F-duct, as the blown slot is not driver
actuated, instead the extra slot allows the rear wing to be steeper without stalling, creating more
downforce. Wit the revised main plane the flap has had to be altered with the f-ducts slot now
positioned further up the wings rear surface. It is this narrower slot that is blown to stall the wing, by the
drivers leg closing the f-duct.
Below all this the diffuser has taken a new shape in the middle section with the curved profile between
the upper and lower deck. Sitting in the exit of the upper deck is two element flap and a panel to
streamline the air passing up under the tail lamp.

New front wing
McLaren's new aero package for Spain includes a wider rear diffuser inspired by Renault's solution and
this new front wing, which features different endplates, split into two sections. Despite the revisions, the
wing itself retains four element profiles.

7.5 Ferrari
Compromised by their monocoque Ferrari have managed to get the F-duct control near the drivers left
hand.
As with most team teams Ferrari had a number of small changes, but most importantly they brought
their full F-Duct rear wing for the first time. Following the same principal as McLarens version, the driver
controls airflow through a duct, that feeds back to and stalls the rear wing, increasing top speed.
However Ferraris system was designed after the monocoque was homologated, so they have had to
compromise on its installation. Air enters the F-duct via an inlet in the top of the engine cover, this
passes down the side of the cockpit surround and into the cockpit, exiting to the left of the steering
wheel. when left open, the duct blows air into the cockpit. However when the driver presses the back of
his specially gloved hand against the rubber outlet, the airflow instead passes back to the rear wing slot
and stalls the wing, reducing drag and downforce for more top speed. In Ferraris case they appear to
split the duct feeding back to the rear downwards towards the gearbox. There are suggestions Ferrari
also stall their diffuser with this feed. Although the routing of the duct down to the underfloor would be
tortuous and the gains from stalling a low drag diffuser would be less effective than stalling the rear
wing.

Spanish GP engine specification
Ferrari introduced a new engine spec in Spain; this was in order to resolve a problem with the pneumatic
valve system. This raises two points; why are they allowed to change a frozen engine specification and
what are the pneumatic valves?
Since the end of 2006 F1 engine specs have been frozen, this was a move to further reduce the costs for
the engine suppliers. It was introduced even after stringent standard engine specifications and limited
engines over season were introduced. Since the first homologation of the engines, teams have been
allowed to retune the engine for different RPM limits and also to accommodate KERS. Offsetting this has
been the increase to the parts covered by the specification freeze.

Teams are however allowed to make changes to the their engines for reliability reasons, this applies both
to resolving issues that have blown up engines, as well as impending failures. To request a change,
teams have to apply to the FIA outlining the reason for the change and the resulting changes. This
information is passed around the other engine suppliers, this transparency helps to reduce excessive
changes and reassures teams what their rivals might or might not be getting up to.
While the fundamental reason for this dispensation is to aid teams with reliability problems, any
reliability change could also bring a performance gain. This could be either as a direct result of the
reliability change i.e. lighter part making more power, or as a secondary result, i.e. new valve seat
material allows a different fuel for more power. Clearly any possible advantage will be taken by the
manufacturers when making changes to the engine.
Ferrari had an issue with leaking pneumatic valves; this meant the car may not be able to last a full race
distance without the system being topped up. Thus Ferrari asked for and gained approval to make
alterations to their valve system to resolve the problem.
Pneumatic valves are universal in F1 and have been for decades, first introduced by Renault on their V6
turbo engine, they replicate the effect of valve spring in closing the poppet valves in the cylinder
head. Where as a valve spring could do the job, they are more difficult to manufacture to cope with ever
higher RPMs. Although F1 engines are now limited to 18,000rpm, these pneumatic valves have worked
on engines revving to over 20,000rpm. Metal coiled valve springs, suffer from harmonic and fatigue
problems at higher revs. While still resolvable, these issues are simply cured with a switch to a
pneumatic valve return system (PVRS). Instead of a valve being closed against the cam by a coil spring
sat in a pocket in the head, the pocket is sealed by a cap and the resulting closed cylinder pressurised
with nitrogen gas creating an airspirng. Of course the PVRS set up can lose pressure and F1 cars run with
small nitrogen cylinder housed in the sidepod to keep the system pressurised. Sometimes when
excessive leaking occurs, the car is topped up at a pitstop by a mechanic with a hand held gas
cylinder. In Ferraris case their problem was that their system had always leaked to some degree, but
with a ban on the longer fuel stops, pit stops are now too short for effective repressurising. Thus they
applied to have their system altered. It is understood that the Ferrari solution takes some lessons from
the Toyota teams experience, possibly through the new Ferrari Engine Head Luca Marmorini, who also
ran Toyotas F1 engine operation until the end of 2008. A different PVRS set up, with different seals and
revised oil formulation to aid sealing, the engine is now believed to be more powerful by some 12 horse
power. Quite a gain from a change in this era of frozen specification.

7.6 Virgin
Virgin had a longer monocoque (arrowed) and married it to a new shark fin engine cover
Even though the team knew at an early stage, that their cars fuel tank would not last an entire race at
full power. The Virgin team have only managed to get one new car ready for Spain. This highlights the
huge task in designing and building a new monocoque and the related aerodynamics and repackaging
the components around the back of the chassis. Thus Virgin have had to lengthen the car to fit in larger
fuel tank into a longer monocoque. As well as the new tub, Virgin brought a new shark fin engine cover
and revised front wing cascades.

7.7 Lotus
While their rivals have either stood still or had to reengineer their cars, Lotus were able to bring a major
upgrade to the T127 for Spain. This is both a mechanical and aero upgrade, the suspension now sports
Inerters (J-Dampers) and most of the bodywork has been revised.
Inerters were brought into F1 by McLaren in 2005 and their presence predates the Renault Mass
Dampers, although they are both solutions to the same issue. Aiming to offset the hysteresis effect of
Rubber pneumatic tyres have on the contact patch. The unequal damping of the tyres can work against
the suspension and create load variations between the tyre and road. Inerters are fitted tot eh
suspension like a heave damper and offset this effect. Inside an Inerter there is a mass that spins on a
threaded rod and operates dependant on the movement of the suspension, this absorbed the loaded put
through the suspension by the tyre to create more consistent contact patch loads. Lotus had been
testing Inerters on a seven post rig in the weeks after China to gain more mechanical grip.
Meanwhile the aerodynamics have been updates with a totally new front wing plus revisions to the
diffuser. The front wing sports a more elegant three element set up and endplates with integrated
cascades. At the rear the diffuser has gained a pair of extra fences. The front wing itself was expected to
be worth 0.5s, while the teams other developments added yet more speed to the car.
Lotus introduce simplified front wing
Sometimes in Formula One it doesn't have to be complicated. For many it appeared like the Lotus T127
was an underdeveloped car with only the front wing having enjoyed some thorough development. In
their Spanish update however, the team are running a much simpler front wing, which apparently proves
useful for the drivers.
While the previous front wing endplate had several vertical panels attached to each other with small
winglets, the new version is a basic endplate, a flat floor panel in yellow and a small guiding vane fixed
on top of that. The wing itself is a more fluent design as the vertical separator was removed. The stacked
panel is now smaller and resembles a Williams design as it is held up solely by its connection on the end
plate. It lacks any other support pillar.

7.8 Renault
Renault brought another update to their front wing, with a new flap arrangement. The inner ends of the
flaps now longer meet the main plane instead they form a point. The wing was tested but not raced, as
was the floor also tested in China, which still appears not to be significant gain over the current race
specification.
Back to inboard mirrors, but are they any better?
As of the Spanish GP, outboard mirrors attached to the sidepod panels are banned by the FIA. The design
was introduced by Ferrari year back but have eventually found unsafe. It was argued that with the wide
position, drivers had to rotate their head to get a clear look, while the position of the mirrors themselves
could reduce visibility and increase the blind spot, an important cause for collisions.
The sudden ban however raises questions as to why the governing body have not acted sooner. It was
obvious that as soon as teams started to copy Ferrari, some incidents could have been avoided with the
traditional, inboard mirror positions. And since they could have known, why not ban them before the
start of the season, when regulations are still being set up.
Anyway, we're back to good old regular mirrors, but the image taken from the rear of this year's Renault
shows there may still be issues to resolve. Even though there is a mandatory test to check if drivers can
see behind their car, Renault's current mirror position somehow voids the minimum dimension
specification of mirrors. Nearly half of the sight area is shaded by the car's shoulder bodywork.
As discussions are now well underway to set rules for next year, it could be a good time to improve the
rear visibility test.

7.9 Williams
Their rivals Williams had a major upgrade, comprising a new diffuser which required a new gearbox
casting. Also the sidepods had new inlets, in particular the left hand inlets being much smaller and r
shaped compared to the previously raced version. The asymmetric inlets highlight that the sidepods
contain different coolers, often the right-hand sidepod contains both water and oil coolers thus needs to
airflow in and out of the sidepod. While teams often have different outlet sizes, its rare for the inlets to
be different left to right.

7.10 Force India

Rear End Update
New beam wings and enlarged cooling outlets
Continuing their current theme of innovation Force India (FI) produced a revised rear end for the VJM03
in the latter days of the Barcelona test. This included a revised beam wing set up and enlarged cooling
outlets.
Originally it appears that the FI used a very tall diffuser and a split rear beam wing. In Actual fact the car
used a lower diffuser, but what appears to be the top section of diffuser was a second full width beam
wing, sat ahead of the split one. Although the rules demand one closed section (i.e. one element) for
the area containing the beam wing, there is a free zone for bodywork sat ahead of it. Last year both
Ferrari and Toyota exploited this area for a second beam wing sat in tandem ahead of the other one.
With the update there are now two full width beam wings, the rearward one no longer split but instead
hooking up over the rear crash structure. However the forward beam wing remains (yellow) and sits in a
cascade with the diffuser, to create a high expansion ratio diffuser by effectively making a taller exit
(light grey). Also aiding the diffuser exit are a pair of fins attached the outside faces of the diffuser and
stack of winglets affixed the rear brake ducts.

Allied to the diffuser changes the hump enclosing the rear of the sidepods around the gearbox was cut
open to allow for greater cooling in the opening flyaway races. Allied to the rear end of the coke bottle
shape, the exhaust outlets and a gaps made for the suspension that allow hot air to escape the sidepods
(all shown dark grey).

MONACO TECHNICAL REVIEW Ferrari F60
8. MONACO TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog] - (May 2010)
8.1 Generalities
From the high speed sweeps of Barcelona, F1 slowed down for its annual race around the streets of
Monte Carlo. Coming just one week after Spain, the teams had little time to develop new parts other
than those specifically required for Monaco.
Indeed few teams even added new high-downforce aero parts; such are the limitations of the bodywork
rules since 2009. With fewer new parts, we managed to get the chance to examine some of the new
many parts introduced in Barcelona because close proximity to the cars and high vantage points makes
Monaco an ideal venue for spotting details on the cars.
Monaco remains the only true street circuit on the calendar. Its well known for being tight, bumpy and
tough on cars and as a result teams tend to run highest possible downforce, with no regard for top
speed, higher ride heights and in many cases softer suspension.
Monaco also hosts the tightest slowest turn in F1; the Loews Hairpin. Getting around here requires over
20-degrees of steering lock, 5 more degrees than any other turn. To allow the cars to make this turn, the
front suspension is modified; with different steering attachments to the upright for more lock, altered
power steering racks and crucially revised wishbones.
As wishbones are allowed to have relatively large cross sections and teams exploit this for aerodynamic
performance, Monacos demand for a large steering angle creates clearance problems for the upper
wishbone. So many teams make a modification for the rear of the wishbone to allow the front wheel to
clear it.

MONACO TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
8.1.1 Monaco Set up: the misconception of wheelbase
To round the tight Loews hairpins teams need to alter their wishbone to clear the wheel (arrowed)
Every year it's necessary to increase the maximum steering angle

of the cars so they are able to run in Monaco's narrow streets, and
in particular around the old, tight Loews hairpin. A car needs a
steering angle of 22 degrees in Monte Carlo, and so the front
wishbones are modified accordingly to allow greater movement of
the front wheels. Stiffer suspension pieces, particularly steering
arms and toe-in arms, are also used here to cope with the
occasional brush with the barriers, and the cars run a higher ride
height than anywhere else to cope with the bumps.

Monacos layout presents unique demands to the teams. As we are all aware, its all about slow and tight
turns, thus devoid of any long straight or fast turns. Other tracks have low speed turns (Hungary) and
there are other tight turns (La source at Spa). Monaco combines all of these and adds the issue of public
roads. Complete with; camber, bumps and kerbs, plus the ever present Armco barriers lining the
trackside.
Thus Monaco requires an exclusive set up to cope with these demands. Its well known that teams run
maximum downforce here; the drag that this inefficient aero set up brings bears no penalty as there are
no straights to speak of. With the addition of aero devices limited now with the 2009 rules, teams cannot
add the plethora of add on winglets and flaps to add downforce. This year a few teams will run add-on
winglets in the 15cm free zone in the middle of the rear wing, but little else aside from maxed out wings
and gurney tabs will be used. Ferrari have added a small winglet to the tail of their shark fin engine
cover this weekend for a little extra downforce. Additionally a floor and diffuser that work well at higher
ride heights will be beneficial, although teams do not run Monaco specific floors. Obviously to cope with
crowned road and bumps, teams run their cars at higher ride heights around the principality. Added to
this softer springs and roll bars will induce more wheel travel and see the aero move through a greater
range of attitudes than normal. For Monaco the resulting aero penalty is offset by the greater
mechanical grip.
Due to the low average speed, Monaco is much more about mechanical grip than aero; this is an area
where misconceptions exist. Wheelbase, although its a fundamental fact that shorter vehicles have

tighter turning circles, in F1 terms wheelbase account for very little at Monaco. With wheelbases over
three metres, the difference in teams wheelbases is just a few percent and not enough to have a
primary advantage over the other factors differentiating the cars. Long wheelbase cars have won at
Monaco and in testing teams and drivers have never found wheelbase a key factor through tight turns.
Frank Dernie quoted me a couple of perfect examples; when Brabham were concerned about their
1983 long wheelbase car around Monaco because it was around 12 longer than the previous car, Nelson
said he did not notice it at all and pulling directly from his experience when at the start of the Eighties
Williams were testing the FW07 six wheeler (a standard FW07 with an extra rear axle). The Williams 6-
wheeler obviously had an effective long wheelbase and one of the first things we tried, before
committing to the project, was a tight circuit test at Croix-en-Ternois to make sure it was not a disaster.
Jacques Lafitte said he forgot he was driving the six wheeler after a few laps.
Mercedes GP are bringing their previous front suspension to Monaco. This results in the car resorting to
its previous short wheelbase set up. This is not aimed at creating a shorter more nimble car, but simply
not being enough long wheelbase wishbones available to the team. Unfortunately for Mercedes this will
push weight forwards in the car, which is counter productive at a track where rear tyre traction is critical.
So while wheelbase is not a primary factor in rounding tight turns, then what is ? Steering lock accounts
for most of the solution, only Loews at Monaco (the tightest turn in F1) and La Source are turns where
the driver has to turn the wheel beyond half a lock. Drivers sometimes having to remove one hand from
the wheel, to get enough clearance for their crossed arms. If the front wheels can turn enough then the
car will get around a tight turn, of course a longer wheelbase car will need slightly more lock for the
same turn a short wheelbase car. To allow the front wheels to steer enough a few mechanical alterations
are required. Firstly the steering racks can be altered with a different ratio to the rack and pinion. But
more commonly the outboard end of the track rod is brought closer to the uprights kingpin (steering)
axis, resulting in more steer for the same rack displacement. This can bring an extra 5-degrees of
steering angle. To allow a power steering system to have a longer stroke, the teams need to alter the
pistons that assist the rack in moving, by also making them longer. Then at the outboard end of the
wishbone, the pivot bearing should have enough freedom to steer the wheel through the required angle,
but clearance between the wheel and the wishbone often requires the wishbones to be altered. This is
normally just a notch moulded in the rear leg of the upper wishbone. Teams do also fit more robust
wishbones for brushing the Armco, as well as tougher drive shafts. Although the latter is as much about
accelerating over bumpy surfaces, than the side thrust from a wheel touching the barrier.
So who ever goes well at this weekends GP, will be as a result of a mechanical set up and downforce that
are matched to the tyres. How long their wheelbase is not going to be the deciding factor. Although who
actually wins may be as much down to luck as any set up parameter!

8.2 Red Bull
A new blown rear wing with an extra slot (arrowed) and windows in the diffuser all downforce to the
RB6
For the third race in a row, Red Bull produced aero updates to the RB6 and in Monaco this consisted
largely of a new blown rear wing. Ahead of the expected debut of their F-duct in Turkey, this wing is
aimed at high downforce and follows a pattern taken by several teams where-by a 15cm slot in the front
of the main plane feeds inside the wing to exit via a full width slot. Making the 2 element rear wing act
like a 3 element wing, so it can be steeper for more downforce. Monaco also gives the chance to view
the car at angles not possible at normal circuits. We can see that the upper diffuser deck is not as large
as other teams (e.g. Renault and McLaren) and does not use complicated vanes in the opening at floor
level. What we can see those is the two windows in the sides of the upper deck to allow the exhaust to
blow up inside the diffuser. The added energy from the fast moving exhaust gasses creates more
downforce when the engine is revving.

Modified brake discs
In order to improve reliability following Sebastian Vettel's difficulties at the Spanish race, Red Bull have
changed the RB6's brakes discs for the Monaco Grand Prix. They now feature smaller holes than the ones
originally requested from brake supplier Brembo. During Thursday practice the team used the discs
pictured, with small oval holes (red arrow), whereas for qualifying and the race the team opted for the
same discs Ferrari use.

8.3 McLaren
No major visual updates appeared for Monaco, they were the only team to run an f-duct in the race.
However both drivers suffered mechanical problems in the race, with Hamiltons car struggling with
overheating front brakes and Buttons car retiring due to overheating. This overheating was caused when
the team did not remove a foam block, used to keep the cooling fans inserted into the sidepods.
Reducing the cooling air getting to the radiators and sending the coolant temperatures sky high.
What Happened to Buttons McLaren on the Grid
Fans blow through tubing into a duct, with an optional dry ice tray, which is secured into the sidepod
with a foam block
At the start of the Monaco Race, McLaren had a rare engine failure. This was not a problem with the
engine itself, but caused by a procedural problem on the grid.
Before setting off for the grid the car is warmed up in the garage and the driver often completes several
laps, cutting through the pit lane before finally parking on the grid. By this time the car is fully up to
temperature and needs fans to keep the car cool. In the case of the engines radiators and oil coolers, this
takes the form of fans inserted into the sidepod inlets. Fans pass cooling air through the radiator cores to
cool the engines fluids.
For McLaren their sidepod fans comprise several parts, an external fan which feeds into convoluted
tubing to a carbon fibre duct, this has the option of a tray of frozen nitrogen being inserted into it to

further reduce temperatures. This then is inserted into a rigid foam block that is squeezed tightly into the
sidepod inlet itself. Other teams have electrical fans fitted into similar carbon mouldings, these are all in
one piece and when removed nothing can be left behind.
What happened to McLaren in Monaco, and this was partly shown by the FIA TV feed, that the
mechanics withdrew the ducts and tubing, but on one side the foam black was left stuffed in the sidepod
inlet. This was obviously missed by the mechanics, but was brought to their attention by the BBC TV pit
lane reporter Ted Kravitz. By then it was too late and the car had to complete the formation lap and start
the race with the block still in. The team were obviously anxious, but the block does have a hole through
it, so some cooling airflow was getting through. With the safety car deployed on the opening lap and the
pit lane closed, Button had no choice but to circulate a low speed, with the engines temperature slowly
rising until steam could be seen spewing from the sidepod.
Although this was a rare error, as the car has these fans fitted when it pits during testing and free
practice. One still wonders if McLaren will revert to a one piece design or tighten up the grid procedure
to prevent another similar situation arising at future races.
Revised rear diffuser
The latest version of McLaren's diffuser is very similar to the one introduced by Renault, with double
longitudinal profiles (yellow-highlighted area). However, there are differences to the French team's
solution. The side diffuser is less angled (1), very long and has a unique profile in its end section. There is
also a new, small flap (2) and an additional one (3) under the deformable structure, which is designed to
boost suction of air from underneath the car.

8.4 Ferrari
Ferrari added this small winglet to the tail fin for added rear end grip
In addition to a revised front wing flap, more downforce was added to the car via a small winglet added
to the rear wing. This two element wing sits in the 15cm free zone in the middle of the wing. Adding
parts like this costs drag, but Monaco the relatively low speeds means that downforce takes precedence
over top speed.
Unlike the similar Lotus solution, Ferrari have a shark fin to package the wing around, so the winglet
splits into left\right sections either side of the fin. Equally unlike the other team Ferraris winglet is just a
single element with a significant gurney tab attached.
The teams weekend and indeed season was given a blow when Alonso's crash in Free Practice 3 wrecked
the car and destroyed the chassis.
Teams rarely scrap a chassis, with only 5 or so monocoques being built for the entire season, losing one
may see the team need to make a new tub in case of future incidents. One effect of the crash was that

we could see the Ferrari diffuser from below as it was winched from the crash site. Visible, was the
intake for the upper deck of the double diffuser, as the stepped underfloor narrows early create an inlet
well forward of the rear axle line, which is where the rules intended the diffuser to start.
Unlike Renault and McLaren the Ferrari diffuser is quite conventional; without the longitudinal vanes
aiding airflow up into the top section of the diffuser.

8.5 Renault
Renault Barcelona spec wing was also run in Monaco, the inner end of the flap is raised with the main
plane being slotted beneath it.
Renault was apparently not joking when they claimed to update their in every race. The team did not
introduce a major update in Spain but has brought new updates at every single Grand Prix, each of them
effectively used as they were all found to be consistent with windtunnel data. Together, Renault's car
has already improved 0.75s since the first Grand Prix.
This time around, the team had another new front wing development, an area where they admitted to
be lacking last year. The new version features a turning vane below the stacked element to help manage
flow together with the endplates. More important however is the change in profile of the major planes.
Stepping away from the steep drop the elements features towards the centre of the wing, the new wing
shows an upward leading edge of the middle element, whereas the base plane is now split in two,
inward of the front wing adjuster.

8.6 Mercedes
Mercedes was forced to return to the short wheelbase format for this race because the wishbone and
steering changes created problems for the team in Monaco format. It was not in order to gain greater
agility for the street circuit, as in Monaco format the team are able to steer the front wheels at a greater
angle to navigate the tightest turns. However, the resulting short wheelbase would have hindered the
cars set up, as it shifts weight forwards when at Monaco you need rear end grip for traction.
Their Barcelona spec roll hoops and engine cover were brought to Monaco. It transpires the decoupling
of the airbox snorkels from the roll structure and allows the team to tune the inlet to suit the tracks
demands on engine and aero and as such, in Monaco the team ran larger inlets than those used in
Barcelona. This is a further benefit to the shorter inlets the set up provides, which aid the engines
breathing.
Where do we put the obligatory cameras?
Year after year teams are trying out new positions for the cameras. Be it the nose cameras or those on
the engine cover, since they have an aerodynamic influence they are deemed interesting to optimize. As
the shape is defined as a neutral wing, the only thing that's left is try to position it where it can be used
as a flow straightener.
Mercedes have therefore followed McLaren's example and are now running nose cameras located low
above the front wing. And if that wasn't enough, the cameras are moved as far back as possible while
still attaching on the front wing supports.

8.7 Sauber
A new lip on the endplate (yellow) redirects airflow around the tyre
As part of a major Barcelona package Sauber introduced several new parts. With a new front wing
endplate and engine cover also making it to Monaco. The front wing endplate sported a new lip ahead
of the rear tyre; this lip was also used at Force India and may be part of their new technical director,
James Keys, influence on the car. This lip redirects the airflow coming down from the rotating front tyre
and sends it around the wheel, rather than impacting the flow already passing along the endplate.
Meanwhile the teams engine cover gained two pairs of cooling outlets, both inspired by rival teams. At
the front shoulder of the sidepod, McLaren inspired outlets span the width of the sidepod, while around
the exhaust outlets Ferrari derived gills, joined to the exhaust outlet by a common slot to make them
legal were also fitted. Its possible these change have also resulted in the team being able to make the
engine cover narrower at the rear, although this is not a visible change.

8.8 Virgin
Force added rear end downforce Virgin ran this winglet in Monaco (yellow)
A new upper deck to the diffuser, brake duct fins and cooling outlet (yellow) differentiated the B spec
Virgin

Again the team ran one B-spec chassis, with the second tub being readied for the Turkish GP. This new
car is more than a larger fuel tanked iteration of the VR01, we noted the shark fin engine cover at
Barcelona, but there are also numerous changes around the back of the car. Most notable is another
section added to the upper deck of the diffuser, although the rest of the lower diffuser section is
identical to the sister car. Smaller details added in this region include a new fin on the rear brake ducts
and a larger Red Bull style opening in the engine cover for cooling.
Like Ferrari, Virgin responded to Monacos downforce demands with a winglet added to the tail fin
above the rear wing. This only appeared on the Vr01-B as the sister car was not equipped with a shark
fin top body.

8.9 Force India

New front brake ducts
There are a lot of new solutions on the Force India in Monaco, including a new front wing, with different
central pillars and endplates. The team have also introduced this new front brake duct, with a wide and
rounded extension in its lower section (see arrow). This is designed to improve the management of
airflow in this area, better directing it under the car and towards the rear diffuser's central section.
The team is becoming a consistent and serious

mid field contender, it continue to press on with
development to the VJM03. In Monaco the
Silverstone based team brought new front brake
ducts and a revised nose cone. Taking a lead
from the Brawn BGP001 and Toyota TF110, the
inner brake ducts reach forward to the front
perimeter of the tyre. This creates a smooth path
for the airflow, both around the wheel and into
the brake duct scoop. Additionally the lower
edge of the ducts forward extension is bulged to
further shape the airflow passing off the front
wing around the front tyre assembly.

Although the nose cone forms the front end primary impact structure and is homologated for the
season, Force India have been able to reshape the fairings added around the front wing mounting pillars.
Previously there was a square shaped trailing extension to the pillar; the new version has a rounded
shape, similar to the hump moulded under the nose. These latter changes to the nose cone were also
brought to Barcelona.

TURKEY TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
9. TURKEY TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog] - (June,3 2010)
[Source: Race Engineering]
9.1 Generalities
From a track with the slowest corner to a track with the highest loaded corner on the calendar, the
Istanbul Park circuits now famed Turn 8 is a world away from Monaco. One of the few new tracks to
create a really demanding experience for the car, Turkey challenges the cars with two short straights,
two tight sequences and one super high load corner sequence.
This means the cars have to be aerodynamically efficient to take the corners as fast as possible without
compromising straight line speed. Thus we saw many new developments for this track as teams seek to
make improvements to the chassis after the opening races. Problems found at early tests and races are
only now being readied for production to make it to the races.

9.2 Red Bull
Red Bulls F-duct uses a driver controlled fluid switch to direct airflow from the lower branch into the
upper branch of the duct

As part of other changes the Pod wing was narrowed for Turkey
New front wings flaps required a larger opening on the endplate to pass flow around the front tyres

Despite their potential being realised with back to back victories, Red Bull brought major changes to the
Turkish GP. There were new parts from the front to the rear, starting with a new front\rear wing, new
pod wings and their much needed F-duct making its debut.
Compared to McLaren Red Bull have had a car considerably slower in a straight-line. This is mix of their
engines outright power and their aerodynamic philosophy. Thus the F-duct, which maintains downforce
for corners and allows higher top speed on the straights, would be a perfect addition to the car. Like
Ferrari their challenge has been to create an F-Duct solution that fits into the existing chassis. The
problem they face is creating enough flow through the duct to make the rear wing stall.
McLaren with their well routed duct and efficient snorkel, have less of a problem. So along the same
lines as the Ferrari duct, Adrian Newey has penned a split duct that uses a fluid switch to route the
airflow between two branches of the duct. The fluid switch is analogous to an electrical switch with
sends current down one direction in a circuit dependent on the resistance the differing branches
provide.
Air flows into the RB5s Duct via separate inlet in the engine airbox inlet, this then passes into the V
shaped switch. In normal running the air flows down the lower branch and exits with little impact under
the rear wing. Air also flows in this state through a forward reaching duct into the cockpit. Red Bull using
a white plastic outlet to this control duct sited near the steering wheel on the left hand side of the
cockpit. When the driver seals the ducts outlet with his left hand, the resistance to airflow in the control
duct and lower branch increases.
Air instead finds an easier route to pass through the upper branch duct, the fluid switch doing this with
out any moving parts. The air that passes through the upper branch passes inside the shark fin and into
the rear wing flap, exiting through slots in the back of the flap the airflow under the wing is broken up
and downforce and drag are reduced. As with most teams introducing their F-duct the team struggled to
get it working consistently and the device will reappear for the next race in Canada.
As mentioned the RB5 also had a new front wing and pod wings. The front wing sported different flaps
which also merged into the endplate in a different way, with the endplate sporting a larger aperture to
allow airflow either side to be routed around the front tyre. While the pod wings are now much
narrower, which is the opposite to the trend for ever larger and more complex pod wings. No doubt
related to the front wing changes these sidepod mounted turning vanes direct the front wheel wake
away from the centre of the car for more aerodynamic efficiency.

Red Bull have introduced their version of the F-Duct system at Istanbul Park. It's a very similar concept to
those on the McLaren and Ferrari, with the air blowing on to the rear wing via two big pipes inside the
engine cover (red arrows). Like the first version of Ferrari's system, the duct is controlled by the driver's
left hand. The team tested it during Friday in Turkey, but it was removed from both cars for qualifying
and the race because it was not consistent enough and it was difficult to operate. It will be back on the
cars in Canada.


9.3 Mercedes
Mercedes GP's F-Duct system, which was introduced in China, has received an upgrade in Turkey. It can
now be activated by the driver's foot thanks to a bigger duct on the side of the chassis (blue arrow). This
was previously much smaller and used to cool the drivers. The system of pipes used to direct the air to
the rear wing is very complicated and they are all concealed by the engine cover, eventually reaching the
wing's main profile through the side endplates.

9.4 McLaren
Numerous smaller changes were brought by McLaren to Turkey. Their rear wing was altered, still running
the second generation F-duct slot, but now the rear wing sports a twisted profile. With a cambered main
plane and the wings angle of attack being reduced at the wing tips. These changes reduce the induced
drag of the wing for less downforce but greater top speed. Even with the F-duct the rear wing still needs
tuning for other sections of the track.
Also on the MP4-25 were revised pod wings with the top section gaining a Ferrari style stepped section.
This changes suggests other areas of the car were altered for the weekend, but perhaps not visibly so. It
was poignant that McLaren ran flow viz tests on Friday morning further strengthening the belief that the
car had geometry changes around the front wing.
Revised sidepod panel

In its own series of "updates at every race",
McLaren have revised the sidepod panel.
Attached to the car's floor and to the sidepod
itself, all connections also fulfil an aerodynamic
purpose. The panel itself is now more curvy at
the bottom, while the section where it is closest
to the sidepod now has a leading edge leaning
inwards, aiming to direct more air around the
outside of the panel.
The panel, although apparently simple, is

extremely important for the car's rear end
efficiency. It attempts to overcome the
turbulence behind the front wheels and guide air smoothly along the sidepod. Eventually it influences
the diffuser, rear wheel drag and the rear wing.


9.5 Ferrari
Ferrari fitted this bulge to the underside of the diffuser the streamline the flow
The F10s downforce deficiency showed itself through the fast turns of Istanbul. New parts were brought
to Turkey, But Ferrari are now aiming a greater update to debut at the European GP. developments that
were ready for this weekend were largely an F-duct update and diffuser changes. At its debut the Ferrari
F-duct was somewhat awkward to use as the driver had to press the back of his hand against the control
duct. Ergonomics have been improved with the use of a knee operated control duct, the driver having
greater strength in his leg and keeping his hands free on the straights for steering.
At the back of the Ferrari, the Diffuser which has retained the same concept since Bahrain, was updated
with a bulged section moulded in the lower diffuser. This is largely an addition to keep the airflow
attached as it passes up from under the car and passes through the diffuser. A greater diffuser update
based on Toyotas unraced TF110 are reported to be in the pipeline for Valencia.

Revised F-duct control

Ferrari have revised the layout of their F-duct
system for Turkey, in particular the mechanism
by which the driver controls it. In Barcelona the
driver was closing the hole using the back of his
left hand (inset), a manoeuvre that was not
very comfortable for Alonso, and even less so
for Massa, who has his steering wheel
positioned further forward and hence actually
had to take his hand off the wheel. In Istanbul,
the hole is now closed with the driver's left leg
and here you can see the pipe inside the
chassis, very similar to the McLaren's.

Oil tank position
For 2010 Ferrari do indeed have their oil tank in a conventional position at the front of the engine. Pre-
season it was widely predicted and reported that the oil tank was moved to inside the gearbox casing, to
free up fuel tank capacity. I spoke to Willi Rampf at the Sauber C29 launch and he confirmed that the
Sauber uses the entire Ferrari engine and gearbox set up, complete with oil tank at the front of the
engine. Thus it made sense Ferrari also had this set up. Last year due to KERS Ferrari split their oil tank
with a secondary oil tank mounted to the rear of the engine above the clutch, this was enclosed by the
gearbox when installed the complete car. This freed up space for the MGU and batteries.

9.6 Renault
Yet another front wing iteration for Renault, this one truncates the cascade replacing part of it with a
winglet
On an almost race by race basis Renault are finding improvements in their front wing assembly. Istanbul
saw the car race with a revised endplate and cascade set up, the main wing and flaps being similar to the
Monaco versions. Where as the previous version had a full width cascade element, the new wing
truncated this part, running instead a Brawn style winglet with a small cascade extending outboard from
it. The endplate retains a air of vanes one of which supports the cascade. This new set up appears to be
more aggressive, with the winglet having a very steep angle of attack.

9.7 Force India
Amongst other upgrades the front wing endplate vane and pod wing vane were new for Turkey
(yellow)
Trying to catch up with the mid field leaders Force India produced major and minor updates for Turkey.
They also had their F-duct make its debut, quite possible similar in ducting to the Ferrari and Red Bull, in
the VJM03s case, the duct is fed from the oil cooler inlets on the roll hoop, the control duct exiting
inside the left hand side of the cockpit near the steering wheel. What marks the Force India setup as
different is that the duct feeds slot sin the main plane, thus the air is stall the wing earlier than near the
trailing edge of the flap, which is hw other teams achieve it.
Other visible updates were a revised front wing endplate, the smaller outer vane being altered and
gaining a rectangular indentation. Then the Pod wing which has run a flap half way down since Bahrain,
has now gained an additional vane hanging from the flap.

Force India's F-duct helps season best qualifying
Force India has secured their year best qualifying session of the year with Liuzzi in 6th and Sutil in 9th
position. The F-duct that was introduced in Turkey but only raced by Liuzzi is now on both cars and
certainly helped them to make a step forward at Montreal, where low drag on the long straights is vital
for good laptimes. The team's system is very similar to that of Ferrari, with inlets on each side of the
airbox and a channel going into the rear wing through the shark fin. Meanwhile the team also brought a
smaller rear wing and
9.8 Lotus
For Turkey the T127s gained a new rear wing assembly, The rear wing is now mounted on two pylons to
pass the load from eh upper rear wing into the chassis. This has allowed Lotus to fit a more curved beam
wing, this now rises higher up over the crash structure.

CANADA TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
10. CANADA TECHNICAL REVIEW

10.1 Generalities
After a two year abscence round 8 of the 2010 championship saw a much anticipated return to the 'Ile
de Notre Dame' and the circuit Gilles Villeneuve. A completely unique race track with long straights
punctuated by chicanes like those at Monza, it has street-race-like risks from the walls lining the
track. Equally the track is semi purpose built, akin to Melbourne in the manner that the track is green
and not rubbered-in, so grip improves over the weekend.
Canada rewards car with low drag, to aid speed on the straights and in order to get through the slow
chicanes strong brakes are needed to haul the cars down from 200mph, then good aero balance and
mechanical grip gets the cars through the turns themselves.
Such is the importance of straight-line speed and braking, teams produce an aero package specifically for
this race with smaller wings and larger brake ducts and these developments will also be used Monza and
for some teams also at Spa.
This years race weekend was dominated by tyres, the green track and resurfacing acting together to
create a very low grip surface. Allied to the low downforce set up, the tyres did not see enough loads to
bring them up to temperature and this lead to graining. Graining is when a tyre isnt gripping the track
and instead slips, the shearing effect then pulling the rubber from the tyre which forms into balls and
reduces grip. A tyre can recover from graining, but equally a tyre that has started to grain, loses heat
and can struggle even more to form a clean contact patch.
Over the Canadian weekend, teams were finding that both types of tyre were degrading through
graining, although the latter stages of the race saw the track rubber-in and allowing longer stints on the
tyres.

10.2 Ferrari
With one race until the major upgrade Ferrari raced with a straightforward version of the F10. A low
downforce rear wing was used along with larger brake ducts. Ferrari also continued to run their f-duct to
aid straight-line speed at the Montral track.
Enlarged brake ducts
Montreal is the toughest circuit for brakes - that's the reason everybody is very keen to produce bigger
brake ducts to improve cooling here, as you can see with this Ferrari front duct. In addition, it is critical to
choose the right friction materials for the brake pads and discs in order to cope with the high levels of
heat and wear. Ferrari, as is their tradition for the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, have temporarily swapped
from Brembo to Carbon Industries products, as used by the likes of McLaren and Williams.


10.3 McLaren
Another team with a major upgrade in the pipeline, but McLaren isnt expecting their new bodywork to
arrive until Silverstone. Instead the usual array of smaller developments were ready for Canada one of
which was specifically for this circuit, a revised version of the F-duct. This included changes to the
ducting inside the shark fin and a narrower outlet slot at the rear of the wing. McLaren also were quoted
as having small changes to the diffuser.
10.4 Red Bull

There were no major changes at Red Bull. Once again they were running the turkey front wing and
endplate, but not their f-duct. It transpires that the initial tests with the f-duct proved problematic as
the vent on the rear wing reducing downforce, probably by allowing a small amount of airflow through
the duct, when it should be closed off, this would reduce the low pressure region behind the rear wing,
costing downforce.
Modified front wing

Red Bull started the Canada weekend with a new front
wing. It was based on the one with two openings on the
endplate, which they introduced in Turkey, but featured
a wider main plane and single flap. For qualifying - and
for the race - they have reverted to the previous wing,
which features only one opening and a slotted main
plane. The team have also modified the car's diffuser
and bodywork around the exhaust area. In addition, a
lot of work has been carried out to improve the cooling
of the brakes.

10.5 Renault
An extreme "W" shape rear wing reduced drag for Renault
Renault were one of the few teams to really develop a 'ultra' low drag wing package. As drag is largely
tuneable by the rear wing size, they made an extreme version of their "W" shaped rear wing. Their
Canada version had an even more pronounced twist in the outer sections, such that in frontal profile the
flap is largely obscured by the raised leading edge of the main plane, this takes the load off the flap and
reduced drag.
To balance the reduced downforce at the rear, Renault also modified their front wing. By using their
new front wing and endplate package Turkey and removing the cascade elements, front downforce was
reduced to match that at the rear.
Renault like most teams also greatly increased the size of their brake ducts, the complex inlets inside the
front wheels gained a much taller rectangular scoop.

Revised front wing

Renault have introduced a new front
wing at nearly every track this year and
Montreal is no different. As the first
low-downforce circuit of the year it
definitely warrants a change. Only the
main plane is the same as the previous
wing. All other components are
different - a more complex endplate
with an additional vertical inner fence,
a revised flap with an extra element at
the rear, and no additional top flap.

Brake duct development

With Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve being
particularly hard on the brakes, all teams have
modified their braking systems to cope with the
additional demand. On a full lap, the cars are
for 16% of the time under braking, more than
any other track on the calendar.
Renault for instance clearly increased the brake

duct aperture, catching more air to provide
more cooling to the brake discs and pads
(notice the difference with the Turkish
configuration in the inset). Renault also ran a
new front wing, removing the stacked elements
of the wing. The rear wing was also modified, retaining the unique W-shape, but extending its curves and
reducing the frontal surface of the wing.

10.6 Williams
A raft of changes from front wing, turning vanes and diffuser lifted the Williams pace.
Although not specifically for Canada, Williams introduced a major upgrade package last weekend. This
affects the entire front aero and lead towards a new diffuser. Starting at the front, the wing uses a
similar frontal profile, but its endplates are following the increased trend for forming the endplate from
down turned ends of the wing. In Williams case the main plane and the two flaps curve down to form a
vaned endplate, although the view of this is obscured by larger vane added tot he front of the endplate.
Sitting behind the wing and under the nose are new bargeboards again following the Toyota 2009 style
for large vanes extending from edges of the nose cone. This year this route has also been adopted by
Red Bull and Ferrari. While these are detail changes the whole philosophy of the front splitter has been
changed. No longer does the Williams have the Brawn inspired snowplough, instead a simpler more
conventional splitter with fences along its edges has been developed. Flow coming off all these new
devices then passes around the sidepods via revised pod wings, which are not stopped above the trailing
edge of the bargeboards. Along with the diffuser which is the teams third major iteration this season,
Williams gained a step change in pace in Canada. Although it will take a track with a greater reward for
aero efficiency to tell if the gain was from these changes and not the unusual conditions in Montreal.
Revised front wing

Williams have introduced two new
front wings in Montreal. Both feature
two vertical turning vanes and are
designed to boost the airflow from
underneath the raised front section of
the chassis (1). Each front wing has a
different forward upper wing (2). On
one example there was a small
splitter (3) on the outside of the
endplate. The team has also brought
two different rear wings.

10.7 Sauber
The cars mid section saw developments to three aero devices (yellow)
Much like Williams, Sauber introduced a package of changes for Montreal. In the C29's case, this was
formed of revised bargeboards and pod wings. Although similar of profile to the old bargeboards, the
new version no longer curves over to meet the side of the chassis. Instead they end vertically and the
down turned fin has been added to the chassis side. Aiding the flow of these devices, the pod wing has
gained a small supplementary fin fitted to the axe-head floor section. Sauber continues to make these
changes under the guidance of new technical director James Key but as yet no major upgrade package
has been announced for the forthcoming races.

10.8 Lotus
After two races, the new Lotus endplate gained this L shaped vane
Mike Gascoynes design team continue to be the only new team to bring small updates to the car for
every race. In Canada these changes affected the front wing and rear wing of the Lotus. Having run the
Toyota inspired front wing endplate\cascade package for two races, they team added a small "L" shaped
winglet to replace the simpler vane fitted to the original design. At the rear Lotus moved away from
their higher downforce rear wing with its 15cm slot and used a far lower downforce two element
wing. This used straight elements and was devoid of the complex slotted arrangement of the normal
wing.

EUROPE TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
11. EUROPE TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog] - (July,2 2010)
11.1 Generalities
From Canada to Spain, F1 travelled back across the Atlantic for the European GP at Valencia to yet
another temporary circuit, however there are few other similarities between Montreal and Valencia.
Although the track was green on Friday, it soon rubbered in, aided by the heat and Bridgestone shod
support races, and as such the track did not see the same graining as in Canada.
Valencia also has a number of faster turns to join the tight sequences, thus the teams were running far
more downforce at this track.
With the cars now remaining in Europe until the last four races of the season, the European GP was a
venue for teams to introduce their mid season upgrades, in preparation for the run of upcoming fast
classic races. We saw three teams joining Red Bull with a blown diffuser, making use of the fast moving
exhaust gas to gain rear downforce.
There were also a number of other significant upgrades with even more expected at the next race in
Great Britain.
11.1.1 Diffusers
Exhaust blown diffusers It was Adrian Newey's Red Bull RB6 that revived the idea of using exhaust gasses
to drive the aerodynamics at the rear of the car. Although launched with a periscope exhaust system, at
the last test of the winter the RB6 surprised all by emerging with a low exhausts blowing both over and
through the rear diffuser. Now four months later other teams have caught up with developments of the
blown diffuser concept. By influencing the flow between the wheel and the chassis, as is passes over the
diffuser, more downforce can be gained, plus this is an efficient way to produce downforce with little
additional drag. With gains of several tenths being reported, this is an advantage the teams can't be
without.
However the three teams joining the fray were not blowing their exhausts through the diffuser, merely
over it. Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes have completed similar modifications to the rear of their cars, in
order to re-route the exhaust pipes to exit low down and in line with the floor. This directs the exhaust
flow over the top of the diffuser, with some of the teams adding new gurney flaps to help drive the flow
out from underneath the diffuser, effectively creating a larger exit area for more downforce. This is a
similar practice to that used through the eighties and nineties, that created a diffuser sensitive to
throttle position, but it's thought the greater distance of the exhaust from the diffuser exit lessens this
impact.
Of course sending a 800 centigrade exhaust stream along carbon fiber components brings it own
problems, with each of the teams tackled the issues in their own way, Ferrari modified their gearbox to
relocated the lower wishbone, Renault ducted the exhaust flow through a shaped heat shield and
Mercedes added coated and vented heat shields around the wishbones. Over the coming races several
other teams are expected to unveil their blown diffusers, for Silverstone; McLaren, Williams and a race
later Force India.
11.1.2 Vaned diffusers

Last year teams found two loopholes in the regulations to allow double diffusers, one to allow larger
exits in the bodywork surrounding the gearbox, then a new interpretation of the bodywork facing the
ground rule, allowing an opening beneath the car to feed the new upper diffuser. Even with these literal
interpretations of the rules teams could only make the inlet under the car span 50cm which is the
maximum width the underbody step could span. This was because the inlet was masked from beneath
by the bodywork forming the step. However it transpires that a further stretch of the rules allows
additional inlets beneath the car, as long as they do not form an opening when viewed from below and
meet the maximum radius rule. Thus teams have created a vaned section outside the 50cm stepped area
in order to create yet larger inlets. This was initially exploited on the unraced Toyota TF110 and
subsequently raced by McLaren and Renault. Images from the last race show Mark Webbers Red Bull
mid air and also being craned away after his airborne moment, clearly showing that Red Bull's new
diffuser exploits this larger opening. Williams also added vanes to the underfloor area on their Canadian
update. With Toyota engineers at several other teams the shift towards this design will be spread even
further up until the end of the year when double diffusers are banned.
11.1.3 F-ducts
If Valencia proved to be the debut race for Blown diffusers', Turkey was the debut for most teams new
F-ducts'. However several teams tried these in Friday practice and chose not to race them while they we
further developed. Now two races later half the field sported a race ready F-duct and even McLaren
modified theirs to allow the driver to control it with his hand and not his knee. As seems to be the way
with F1 designs, teams are once again converging on what appears to be the optimal design solution.


Each teams system feeds a fluid switch from a high pressure point on the car (i.e. McLarens snorkel, or
around the airbox inlet), the switch takes the form of a "V" shaped duct, one lower duct feeding out to a
low pressure region beneath the rear wing and the other duct leading into the rear wing. This fluid
switch is further connected to a duct running into the cockpit for the driver to alter the pressure within
the switch by closing the vent with his hand. Normally airflows through the switch into the lower duct
and also into the cockpit, then when the driver gets onto the straight he covers the cockpit duct and the
flow in the switch takes the path of least resistance and redirects through the rear wing, creating the
stall effect. Not surprisingly the FIA have moved to ban this technology next year, by preventing any aero
devices (bar those specifically permitted) being under the driver's control.

11.2 Ferrari
Having run their new exhaust and sidepod package at a brief promotional run at Fiorano the week
before, Ferrari arrived at Valencia with at least some knowledge of the heat and installation issues with
the new set up. This was Ferraris much anticipated upgrade, but was in effect much more limited in
scope than expected. Only the exhaust, radiator and sidepod package formed the main visible part of the
upgrade, as the wings and diffuser remained largely as they were run at previous races.
Having been designed with a U shaped exit pipe, the F10 gained a repackaged exhaust system, which
instead pointed the pipe low down and exited through an opening in the tail end of the sidepods. This
blows the exhaust over a heat shield affixed to the top of the diffuser.
The trailing edges of the diffuser gained extra gurney tabs to help extract airflow from under the diffuser
for more downforce. The rear of the car was littered with heat sensitive stickers and bands of heat
sensitive paint, so the team could monitor the temperatures.
In Felipe Massas case his lower rear wishbones were rested as he was able to run a revised gearbox
casing that moved the wishbone upwards to move it away from the 800c heat of the exhaust flow.
Alonso did not get this upgrade as his gearbox was not due for its four race rotation. Completing the
upgrade package were new radiators and cooling outlets designed to cope with the summer run of hot
European races.

Exhaust-blown diffuser
Ferrari have made radical changes for
Valencia, introducing their version of
Red Bull's exhaust-blown diffuser.
They have dramatically modified the
shape of their exhausts, from the
previous design (1), to a lower, more
RB6-inspired layout (2). They've also
introduced a new gearbox case to
Felipe Massa's car to raise the rear
suspension pick-up points to help
accommodate the changes. There's
also a larger radiator layout (3) to
handle the additional heat within the
lower and more enclosed bodywork.
Inset, you can see the exhaust on the
F10 is shorter, and therefore ends
before Red Bull's.
Just as rumours suggested in recent days and

weeks, Ferrari's aerodynamic update at Valencia
includes a revised exhaust system that mimicks
the Red Bull's design. Rather than exiting the
exhaust gases through the upper side of the
sidepods, the pipes are now relocated to push
gases out just above the car's flow, ahead of the
rear diffuser.
At the same time, Ferrari also shielded its lower
wishbones to protect them from the heat while
strips are added to measure the exact
temperature of the suspension arms. The team
also revised the rear brake ducts to make sure
they don't fetch too much of the hot exhaust gases.
The change marks the departure of the high exhausts, introduced by Ferrari and quickly followed by its
competitors. The last time a low exhaust was tried was on the McLaren MP4-18, again a Newey designed
car. That one however had its exhausts exit into the diffuser, causing troubled pressure differences. The
MP4-18 eventually got revised with high exhausts before it was first raced.
F10-Valencia.flv
Clic the above link to show a video of the new diffuser

Ferrari produced a revised sidepod package as part of the blown diffuser set up, along with a new
exhausts system; the team fitted revised water and oil coolers with subtle changes to the cooling outlet
at the rear of the coke bottle shape. To remove the lower wishbone from the heat of the new exhaust
Ferrari also utilized revised gearbox case.
This was only fitted Felipe Massa's car, as Fernando Alonso's gearbox was still within its 4-race sequence
and will be swapped out when rotation is due.


11.3 McLaren
With their major upgrade and blown diffuser expected for the next race, McLaren made do with the
revised Canadian diffuser, with its vertical fences sporting arched joins to the roof of the diffuser. Also
rumours of a new f-duct control where confirmed when the McLaren was spotted with the control duct
now being inside the cockpit near the steering wheel, rather inside the footwell. Thus the driver controls
the stalling of the rear wing by using his hand rather than his leg.

11.4 Red Bull
Having trialled their F-duct in Turkey, Red Bull returned with a revised duct. This was raced for the first
time and the changes were in the detail and not the general layout of the system as explained in the
Turkish Tech Desk.
Perhaps more significantly the RB6 gained a new diffuser, at first this appeared to be a slightly reworked
version of the previous diffuser, merely having arched joins to the vertical fences inside the diffuser. But
Mark Webbers crash gave a clear view of the underside of the diffuser and this has changed since the
early part of the season.
Their double diffuser is fed by airflow passing under the car and into an inlet formed between the
diffuser and the narrowing of the underbody. Previously this was a simple opening and around 50cm
wide. Now Red Bull has adopted the McLaren\Renault philosophy of creating a vaned opening, which is
far longer and wider the previous version.
In theory the larger the opening, the more mass flow passes through the upper deck of the diffuser for
more downforce. The vanes are effectively a false floor set at the maximum radius allowed, to create an
opening beyond the 50cm width of the underfloor step. This will have given the RB6 a significant rear
downforce boost.
Also Red Bull adopted new front brake ducts, these featured forward extensions for the first time, such
that the duct extends forward the front perimeter of the tyre. This smoothes the airflow between the
front wheels and chassis.

As already noted, the Red Bull sported a new diffuser complete with the vaned inlet beneath the car.
This feeds into a revised diffuser, with an arched roof. Rather than joining the diffusers internal splitters
at right angles, large radius joins are used creating a unique effect.
Also Red Bull have finally joined most other teams in extending their inner front brake ducts forwards
the tyres leading edge. Although similar designs are now banned on the outboard end of the wheel\tyre,
they are still allowed on the inboard end.

They are useful in smoothing the airflow off the highly loaded outer span of the wing as it passes around
the inner face of the spinning tyre.

11.5 Renault

Renault were one of the teams to introduce a blown diffuser for Valencia. In concept the same a Ferrari
and Mercedes versions, with the periscope exhaust switched for a low exiting one blowing over the top
of the diffuser. But in detail Renaults system was more intricate.
The large diameter round tail pipe is fed into a shaped heat shield, to create a wider lower exit to protect
the lower wishbone from heat. To the side of the outlet there were several fences to direct the airflow
accurately up the diffuser. As the sidepods have been altered to accommodate the new tail pipes, the
cooling outlets have also been revised with a square window created around the gearbox fairing to allow
hot air to escape the sidepods.
Not content with just the blown diffuser Renault also brought another front wing and brake duct
package. Reportedly the teams 22nd iteration of front wing, although perhaps only the fifth major
endplate version. The endplate and wing follow the Turkish set up, but the outboard cascade is now
reduced to a simple flap attached the vane. This fed back to further revised brake ducts, with a down
turned vane replacing the more complex arrangement seen previously.

Low blowing exhausts

Renault are another team to introduce a Red Bull-
style low blowing exhaust configuration in Valencia,
joining Mercedes and Ferrari (Force India and
McLaren are expected to follow at the next round at
Silverstone). The exhaust exit is covered (red arrow)
and has some thermal protection against the high
temperatures. Renault have also introduced a new
gearbox casing to allow for the higher suspension
pick-up points that are needed to accommodate the
revised configuration.

Increasingly close to the leading teams Renault continued their aggressive development strategy with yet
more changes around the front of the car to compliment a new blown diffuser. The Turkish GP front
wing endplate was modified to create a gap between the outboard cascade and the winglet inboard of
the endplate. Previously the cascade element was adjoined to the winglet. Also the front brake ducts,
which have sported several different vane arrangements, had a far simpler "r" shaped vane towards its
leading edge.

11.6 Mercedes
The other of the four blown diffuse teams, Mercedes fitted their low exhaust in Spain. Similar to Ferrari
other than the tailpipe was still enclosed with the sidepods exit. Plus there were also vanes added to the
diffuser top to guide the airflow and keep heat from the tyre.
Revised exhausts
Like Ferrari, Mercedes GP have
introduced shorter exhaust pipes and
lower bodywork at the rear of their
car in Valencia to mimic Red Bull's
exhaust-blown diffuser. Unlike
Ferrari, they haven't brought a new
gearbox casing, but have adapted
their original design. A new rear
diffuser has also made its debut on
the MGP W01 for the European
Grand Prix weekend to utilize the air
blowing from the exhausts to the
fullest.
11.7 Williams
After an inconclusive debut for the major aero update in Canada Williams again ran the new set up and
resurrected the F-duct on Barichellos' car, leaving Hulkenberg with a new rear wing to race.
One feature since picked up on the Canadian aero package is the new diffuser, much like Red Bull with
an outwardly a simple update with a wider upper deck to the diffuser. But closer inspection the wider
upper deck is facilitated by the addition of a vaned inlet beneath the car. Simplistically the larger inlet
allows for a larger outlet and creates more downforce.
The f-duct appeared outwardly to be the same arrangement as used in Turkey, the set up could not be
used on Hulkenbergs' car, as the seat needed modifying. Instead the non shark fin top body was mated
to blown rear wing. Not only featuring the small 15cm slot on the flap but also a McLaren-like large inlet
on the main plane feeding a full width slot on the rear of the wing. The extra slots created, allow for a
steeper higher downforce wing package.

Having moved away from the Brawn-like' splitter mounted turning vane towards more conventional
nose mounted vanes in Canada, Williams also had a major diffuser upgrade. As described in the start of
this review, Williams have moved to a wider vaned diffuser inlet. Valencia also saw the return of their F-
duct; however a seat fitting issue for Hulkenberg meant that only Barichello had this device fitted.
Instead Hulkenberg ran a new rear wing with a conventional blown slot, the main plane having large
15cm wide opening in its upper surface to feed air through the full width slot onto the rear of the wing.
Similar in concept to McLarens Spanish rear wing, effectively creating a three element wing from just
two elements. Williams's performance was also boosted by a Cosworth engine upgrade, despite the fixed
mechanical specification the electronics have been recoded for better drivability, something that has
been a weak point of the Cosworth package.

11.8 Force India

Another team with a major update expected in the forthcoming races, their blown diffuser is predicted
for the German GP. Force India were again running their F-duct for this race.

GREAT-BRITAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
12. GREAT-BRITAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW

12.1 Generalities
12.1.1 Exhaust Driven Diffusers
Red Bulls Exhaust exits low and blows through the diffuser
Not withstanding the 2009 downforce reduction rules, the diffuser continues to be the dominant factor
in aero design. Making the most of creating low pressure under the rear of the cars bodywork is as
important as ever. Last year we saw teams exploit rule loopholes to create additional underbody inlets
feeding larger exit areas, known as the double diffuser. This year teams have further exploited these
rules for ever larger inlets and outlets. However it has again fallen to Red Bulls Adrian Newey to look at
the history book and re-invent a concept that has since fallen out of favour. Last year he did this with the
pull rod rear suspension and this year it has been the exhaust driven diffuser. By mounting the exhaust
outlets in line with the floor, they blow through the diffuser driving greater airflow and hence creating
more downforce. It seems for the teams midseason upgrades, many will follow Red Bulls lead.
A diffuser is a simple device; a diverging duct creates low pressure under the car, creating negative lift,
i.e. downforce. The FIA has acted several times since the mid eighties to cap the potential of the diffuser
by reducing its length, height, ride height and position relative to the rear axle. Moving through the
diffuser is the key to it producing downforce, or Mass flow as the aerodynamicists call it. This can be
achieved with the size of the diffuser itself, effectively capped by the rules, but teams still are split on
how large an exit they want to create within the current bodywork rules (McLaren\Renault large exit,
Red Bull\Ferrari smaller exit). Onset airflow is another factor controlled by the front wing, bargeboards
and the floor itself, but this is somewhat capped by what can be achieved with the limited devices the
rules allow for. Then there is the flow over the top of the diffuser, this has been perhaps the biggest area
of development in recent years. By ending the diffuser with a gurney flap, the airflow over the top of the
diffuser can actually aid airflow underneath the diffuser. This is the reason sidepods have become
slimmer\undercut and the diffuser appears more exposed amongst the coke bottle bodywork. Effectively
the harder the air flows over the diffuser, the more powerful the gurney can be in puling airflow from
inside the diffuser; this makes the diffuser act as though the exit is larger and makes more downforce. As
long as a car needs bulky sidepods (even bulkier with this years fuel tanks) then the potential power of
the airflow over the diffuser is limited. However we have a secondary source of powerful airflow at the
rear of the car and thats the exhaust pipes. Using the flow from the exhaust pipes can actually drive
airflow through the diffuser, either by blowing inside the diffuser or over the top and driving the gurney
flap. This isnt a new solution, in fact Renault exploited this as early as 1983, when diffusers first appears
in place of the banned full-length ground effect tunnels. Renault split the pipes exiting the turbocharger
into three and directed them exactly at the point where the flat floor kicks up the form the diffuser. Soon
most teams followed this format and for twenty or so years teams experimented with different exhaust
outlet positions within the diffuser. As F1 switched from turbocharged engines to normally aspirated, the
flow out of the exhausts was no longer smoothed by the action of the turbo, the flow became much
more abruptly on or off. along with the increasing dominance of the downforce created by the diffuser,
this made the amount of downforce produced vary depending on throttle position, i.e. more downforce
at full throttle where the flow was aided by the engine, then less downforce as the driver lifted off
reducing the through flow. To negate the effect teams moved the exhaust outlets from the diffusers kick
line to a less sensitive position, normally further up the diffuser roof. Eventually teams sought to avoid
any sensitivity and move the exhausts clear of the diffuser and blew them over the top of the exit. Until
Ferrari shifted their exhausts to exit periscope style in 1998. Most teams followed this approach aside
from a few teams, which wanted to keep the blown effect, notably this was Both McLaren and Minardi.
Eventually both teams had to divert from blown diffusers in order to package the much shorter exhaust
pipe lengths demanded by the engine suppliers. It was Adrian Newey at McLaren that raced the last
heavily blown diffuser, the MP4-16 exited its pipes low down in the middle of the diffuser. In 2002 the
MP4-17 went to periscope exits due the demands of the Mercedes engine. At the cars 2002 launch he
told me Requests from the engine supplier, from Ilmor, was different exhaust system requirements
which meant we could no longer continue with putting the exhausts exits out through the floor so we
had to go for top exits. I asked if this was an engine related requirement not aero, Newey said yes. I
further prompted him if this was for shorter pipe lengths? He replied Id rather not go into details; we
couldnt accommodate what was wanted. Underlining his commitment to the blown diffuser
philosophy, I asked hed tried try top exits on the old car (mp4-16)? Newey said No never.

McLarens MP-15 blew its exhausts into the diffuser
But Newey reverted to a blown diffuser for the highly experimental MP4-18 in 2003. The exhausts exited
relatively high in the side channels to blow into the taller middle tunnel. However the routing of the
exhaust past the all new carbon fibre (double clutch) gearbox lead to problems and along with other
technical issues the car never raced. Replaced by the MP4-17D and MP4-19 both with the by now
conventional periscope exhausts.
McLarens still born MP4-18 blew its exhausts towards the middle of the diffuser

This year Newey designed the RB6 to have a blown diffuser, although it was first tested with the
conventional RB5 exhausts, it was only at the last test the team unveiled the secret exhaust
development. Even replacing the old exhausts with look-a-like stickers to fool the unwary. This
development was posted here back in early march, as was the opening into the diffuser. Strangely many
fans back then denied the systems appearance and the fact it blew through the diffuser.
The RB5 that preceded this years car, already had high placed rear wishbones, and this allowed the
subsequent car to run exhausts mounted low down and exit well below the wishbone, avoiding any
overheating issues of the carbon fibre components. Teams have run exhausts in very close proximity to
the wishbones now for many years, the differing strategies teams employ reduce the thermal load on
the carbon fibre wishbones. Either gold foil film, extra carbon fibre heat shield or these are often coated
with ceramic finishes to reflect heat. This latter finish being made obvious by the matt silver finish tot he
parts. Sauber have run these on their top rear wishbone for many years. The heat shield even having a
small air inlet to feed cooling air in-between the heat shield and wishbone beneath. Teething troubles
may be expected as the teams start to run the new exhaust positions, but the heat protection will be a
solution relatively easy to overcome.
The inlets for the diffuser (yellow) are visible behind the exhaust outlets

The inlets for the exhaust flow are visible within the diffuser (yellow)
Contrary to the popular belief the low exhaust position is not related to the Red Bulls Pull rod
suspension, in some respects having the exhaust in close proximity to the pull rod\rocker linkage is
undesirable. But the exhaust positioning is probably more sensitive to wishbone position, such that
teams aiming for low wishbones may have problems packaging the exhaust under the suspension.
McLaren and Virgin have notably low wishbones.
In the RB6s case Newey made an opening in the diffuser to allow the diffuser to be blown both under
and over by the exhaust. This probably helps the airflow going up the outside shoulder of the upper
diffuser deck, which probably has little energy and struggles to keep attached. Other teams this weekend
may be expected to run a diffuser blown over the top, which perhaps offers less potential then a through
blown diffuser, but at least will be legal next year when double diffuser are by banned by new rules
preventing openings in the diffuser.
Another misconception of the low exhaust is the effect on tyre temperature. Its possible the exhaust
does affect the inner shoulder of the rear tyres, but this may well be an effect teams want to discourage.
Any tyre heating will certainly be secondary benefit of the system and the sole reason for going with low
exhausts. Its interesting to note Red Bull have run a fence on the floor between the exhaust and rear
tyre. This probably helps keep unwanted heat from the tyres. But in Canada, where tyre temperatures
were, this fence was removed. It could be that the tyre heating effect could be a tuneable parameter, by
varying the heat shielding around the coke bottle area.
So far we have seen Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes have followed Red Bulls back to the future
exhaust\diffuser solution. McLaren and Williams are expected to follow suit for the enxt race At
Silverstone.

12.1.2 Red Bull Map-Q: The secret to the teams Q3 pace

As explained above, teams blowing their diffusers rely on the throttle being open to keep airflow passing
to the diffuser. Without this airflow, the diffuser loses downforce and the driver suffers a loss of grip or
balance just as he enters the corner.
While careful design and how the exhaust is placed in relation to the diffuser, can alleviate some of the
problems, any benefit from blowing the aerodynamics will be reduced when the throttles closed and no
exhaust gasses are flowing.
Its been reported that Red Bull are following a practice that was used on turbo cars (i.e. the old F1
turbos and WRC cars) to keep the turbo spooled up. By means of retarding the ignition when the driver is
on the overrun as he slows for a corner. If Red Bull can keep the flow out of the exhaust pipe relatively
constant, even when the throttle is closed going into a turn, then the diffuser will see a more consistent
air flow and maintain downforce. Relieving it of the on\off throttle sensitivity so often a criticism of
EBD systems. In effect an antilag system is trying to do the same as the Red Bull EBD mapping,
maintaining a constant exhaust gas pressure, on or off the throttle.
Ignition normally occurs within the cylinder, driving the engine
When an engine is running normally, accelerating with the throttle open, the ignition of the fuel and air
takes place inside the cylinder above the piston. The expansion of the gasses drives the piston and turns
the engine.
After ignition, the exhaust valve opens and the cooler gasses rush down the exhaust pipe

During this process the gasses then escape into the exhaust pipe as the exhaust valves opens. As the
burning has already occurred the gasses are some what cooler, the then temperature of the actual
ignition. This means the exhaust gasses flow down the exhaust pipe with some speed and energy.
On a closed throttle, little air or fuel are burnt reducing the exhaust gas flow
When a driver lifts off the throttle, the engine does induct much air, nor burn much fuel, as a result the
engine slows and the exhaust flow also slows down. It is this problem that affects the diffuser, as it sees
less exhaust flowing through it.
With retarded ignition, the mixture burns in the exhaust creating a flow of gasses through the exhaust
What Red Bull do is retard the ignition and maintain some throttle and fuel to allow combustion to
continue to take place. However the ignition of the air and fuel mixture now takes place later in the
engines revolution, when the exhaust valve has already opened. Rather than driving the piston down,
the explosion of the mixture goes into the exhaust, still expanding as it does so. This creates a rush of gas
through the exhaust mimicking the effect of running with the throttle open. Thus the diffuser still sees a
flow of gas and maintains downforce despite the engine slowing down.

Retarding the ignition overheats the exhaust components (red)
Of course this gain doesnt come for free, the heat of combustion now takes place in the exhaust port, so
that the exhaust valve, cylinder head and exhaust pipe all suffer excessive heat. This will affect them, as
they cannot withstand this sort of thermal load for long periods. Equally the process burns additional
fuel, in the race this is a negative thing as fuel is limited and no refuelling is allowed.
This ignition retard mapping would be controlled via the SECU via the driver selecting a steering wheel
control, using quite normal tuning parameters and not some clever workaround. Of course this is all
quite legal.
If the overheating issues can be contained, this would be a relatively simple mapping to introduce for
another EBD team. As mentioned Renault Sport, Red Bulls engine supplier would have to know about
this. Copying the concept, but not the actual SECU code would be quite easy.

12.2 Ferrari
Revised front wing
For the first time this season, Ferrari have
introduced a double-flap solution on their front
wing at Silverstone to increase downforce. The
previous, single-flap solution can be seen in the
top drawing and the new version in the bottom
drawing. Of particular interest is the more
sophisticated shape of the profiles, which rise up
in the middle section of the wing (see red arrows
in bottom drawing).

12.3 Red Bull

Revised front wing
Red Bull introduced a heavily-revised
front wing at Silverstone, though only
Vettel got to qualify and race with it. A
new camera position in the centre of
the wing (1) helps produce more
downforce there, allowing the team to
reduce the main wing angle, hence
cutting drag. The design also features
a new flap adjustment (2), two vertical
slots (previously one) in the endplates
and a revised main profile. The overall
effect of the changes is improved
airflow to the leading edge of the
sidepods, which in turn means the
diffuser can work more efficiently and
produce greater downforce.
Updated diffuser
At Silverstone Red Bull are again
using the revised diffuser they
introduced in Valencia. It's different
to the previous incarnation (inset),
featuring a pointed top section on
the outer edge (1), similar to the
McLaren, and a round shape (2) at
the point where the vertical middle
plate meets the top edge of the
diffuser.

12.4 McLaren
Revised front wing
Although they dropped their blown
diffuser for Silverstone, McLaren are
using their new front wing. It
features two main differences. The
vertical splitter in the middle of the
wing is new (top arrow). It is nearly
level with the inner edge of the front
tyres and is designed to improve the
airflow directed to the inside of the
tyres. The second change is the
raised curved section under the
splitter (bottom arrow), which acts
as a skirt to improve the efficiency of
the main profile.



McLaren playing catch up with diffuser

After many teams surprised McLaren by coming up with a blown diffuser at the European Grand Prix in
Valencia, Woking had its blown diffuser ready at Silverstone, only to find though that it didn't work as
expected. Diffusers and
exhausts around them are
an especially difficult area to
model, and it is in this area
that teams are suffering
most of the in-season
testing ban. McLaren added
shark gills on both sides in
FP2 but finally decided
against the system. Another
new attempt will be done at
the German GP in
Hockenheim after the team
has learned the system
better thanks to the on-
track data in Silverstone.

NEW
OLD

NEW
OLD


McLaren in the dark on flexing front wing

McLaren have been running a new front wing design since Silverstone, in many ways quite different to its
opponents. The new wing - in the lower half of the image - has a slightly revised endplate but also
includes a more elaborate vertical support ahead of the inner front tyre wall. While it supports the
stacked element, it has now
become an important element to
manage the airflow over the wing
and onto the front tyres.
Meanwhile though they have

discovered the performance
advantages Red Bull's flexing front
wing might bring, and the team are
desperately trying to understand
the system, which so far they have
failed to do. At the same time the
team acknowledged that they are
running somewhat behind in the
blown diffuser area. At least they
know what to do next...

12.5 Williams
Low-blowing exhaust system
Previously only Nico Hulkenberg has used Williams'
low-blowing exhaust (red arrow), but on Friday
morning at Silverstone team mate Rubens
Barrichello was also running the upgrade. It's quite
similar to Ferrari's system, and is therefore less
complicated than the ones used by Red Bull and
McLaren. The FW32 also features new bodywork
and engine cover for the British race.
Williams have introduced yet another major car update at Silverstone after introducing an effective F-
duct at the previous Grand Prix, held at Valencia. The car already showed much improved pace in Spain,
but at Silverstone both drivers could confirm their performances thanks to a new blown diffuser. The
change will obviously benefit the FW32 a lot as it previously featured high exhausts that appeared to
disturb upper sidepod airflow quite a lot. The new sidepod slopes down much steeper, resembling much
the design of the Red Bull. With this change, exhaust gases are now pushed onto the diffuser, allowing it
to work more efficiently while drag will certainly have reduced above the sidepod.

GERMANY TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
13. GERMANY TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog July, 30 2010]
13.1 Generalities
For the German GP we saw excitement and controversy, both on the track and on the technical side. Just
two races after the Williams and Mercedes teams followed Red Bull with blown diffusers, the same
teams have now leapfrogged Red Bull with even more radical designs. As Hockenheim is a relatively slow
track nowadays, the low speed downforce generated by the blown diffuser was a critical advantage.
Then as a sign that pressure to win the championship grows, McLaren raised concerns over the flexing of
the Red Bull and Ferrari front wings. Although the Red Bull wing has shown signs of flexing all year, its
now been raised as a issue within the media and required the FIA to act after the race to ensure the
wings met the defection test, in the spirit of the rules. Initial concerns over the tyre choice for the
German GP proved unfounded as despite losing time on Friday to the rain, teams were able to run both
option and prime tyres without dramatic problems with pace or longevity.

13.1.1 Aero elasticity Red Bulls front wing
A very public exposure of the front wing flexing on the Red Bull was made during the German GP, the
analysis by journalist Stephane Samson and photographer Darren Heath, showed the tips of the Red Bull
front wing running far closer to the ground than their rivals. While some of these pictures can be
explained partly by different ride heights, roll positions or attitude changes, some pictures show the Red
Bull front wing in a drooped (anhedral) attitude. This has been backed up by on board footage, where by
the roll hoop camera is fixed rigidly to the car and any movement of other sprung parts of the car should
remain immobile in relation to the camera. Yet still the RB6 has routinely exhibited excessive movement
through out the car speed range.
Aero Elasticity
Since the nineties F1 teams have been exploiting a phenomenon called aero elasticity, this is where the
bodywork of the car, mainly the wings, flex to alter their aerodynamic characteristics. At first this was
largely created by the entire rear wing assembly bending it backwards, then more specific parts of the
rear wing and as exposed this season, the front wing of the Red Bull has been visibly flexing.
This flexibility can be for three different benefits, either reduced drag, improved balance or greater
downforce. With a rear wing limiting top speed, most attention has been paid to reducing its drag. As
mentioned this was first tackled by the top rear wing and endplates being angled backwards by the beam
wing twisting. A few pre-season failures leading to big accidents saw the FIA introduce the first bodywork
flexibility rules. In order to enforce the rules, the FIA designed the first deflection test, a rig pulls the wing
backwards by the endplates and the deflection was measured. While this test stopped this practice, it
also set a standard to which the cars had to meet in order to be deemed legal. Thus if the car passed the
scrutineers deflection test, it was approved to race. However if the car could flex its wings and still meet
the test, then they had an advantage that couldnt be immediately penalised.

Soon teams sought to reduce the angle of attack of the rear wing via flexing the flap or main plane. Then
as the FIA introduced additional deflection tests to circumvent these workarounds, the teams flexed the
wings to reduce the slot gap and stall the rear wing (Much like a passive F-duct), again deflection tests
and latterly the slot gap separator effectively stopped this practice.

Front wing flex
Exploiting aero-elasticity with the front wing has not been to reduce drag for greater straight-line speed,
as the front wing produces very little drag. At the end of the nineties teams were using front wings that
drooped into an anhedral shape (i.e the tips drooping downwards creating an inverted V shape). This
placed the wing and its endplates closer to the ground, both of which gained more downforce. Firstly the
wing was closer to the ground which increased the ground effect. Up to a point the lower a wing is to the
ground the more downforce it generates. Then the endplates role in sealing the high pressure above the
wing from the low pressure below it, is improved if the endplate can run closer to the ground. Effectively
make it act like an Eighties wing-cars skirt. To prevent this the FIA produced another deflection test; a
50kg (500n) load is applied to the wings endplate, should not produce more than 10mm of movement.
Again this had largely stopped the practice of excessive deflection for front wings.
However there were still benefits to be had from flexing the front wing flap that was not affected by this
test. Instead the wing has been flexed to main a stable centre of pressures position, flexing the flap
downward at speed to reduce the wings angle of attack reduced downforce and moves the centre of
pressure backwards, reducing the cars tendency to be oversteery at high speed. There is now a
deflection tests to prevent this practice.

Red Bulls RB6 front wing
At some races last year and evident through out this year is the front wing of the Red Bull RB6 flexing at
speed. Visible from the on board camera above the drivers head, the front wing tips can be seen to
slowly run closer to the ground as the car accelerates. As this is a low frequency movement, the effect
can be seen in reverse as the cars brakes from high speed. The wings endplates springing up as the car
rapidly loses speed and the aero load applied to the wing diminishes. This was clearly visible from the
early season races and as early as the Chinese GP I emailed the FIA about this practice and whether it
was deemed legal. They reiterated the standard 500n 10mm deflection test and suggested the car was
legal, not directly countering the point that the wing is seen flexing. While most teams wings will flex at
high speed, whereby some movement is often seen as the car brakes from high speed. The amount of
movement and the low speed at which it starts to occur are startling with the Red Bull wing. The point
made by the FIA to me back in April and again after the German GP in late July was that the car met the
deflection test, thus was legal to race.
Flex Wing RB6.flv

Clic the above link to show a video of the flex wing

This flex was seen back in China 2010, not simply Germany

Front wing Load cases

An F1 car makes its own weight in downforce at just 70mph, thats ~600kg of load on the car, half of this
load is from the wings and half from the diffuser, thus the wings create some 300Kg of load at this speed.
With the cars centre of pressure being some where near 45% forward biased, this means the front wing
is creating something like 140Kg of load, split between the left and right wing each wing is producing
70Kg of load at just 70Mph. this is the speed of the slowest turn at the Hungaroring this weekend and
only slightly faster than the hairpin at Monaco! Thus the FIA limit of 50kg is vastly under specified for the
actual load an F1 car sees at even the slowest circuits. Its not surprising a team can created a wing to
beat the 50Kg-10mm deflection test and yet achieve far greater deflections, suggested to be as much as
25mm, at much faster corners.
Hows this done is it legal?

An F1 front wing is a complex moulding of carbon fibre bonded to metal sections. Although the flaps and
endplate are detachable, from a structural point of view a front wing is a single piece. Mounted at its
centre section by pylons affixed under the nose cone, itself stoutly fastened to the front of the chassis. In
the eyes of the rules and with the exception of the driver adjustable front flap, the front wing should
meet the regulation 3.16 regarding aerodynamic influence:
-must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom);
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Therefore the entire assembly can not be allowed to move in relation to the rest of the car. However no
car can be 100% rigid and F1 cars are subjected to huge aerodynamic loads, hence the reason for the FIA
to set the deflection test. If the wing can meet the test and still deflect above the test load, then the FIA
deem it legal and the car can race. This could be achieved by accident or by design. Its possible that the
carbon fibre lay up creating the wing will continue to deflect in a linear way all the way from zero load to
50kg and then for loads of 50kg upwards. Its reasonable to assume most teams wing respond this way.
However its possible to alter the layup of the carbon fibre or add some from of mechanical system (i.e.
hinges or springs) to allow a non-linear repsonse to create the 10mm of movement at a 50Kg load, then
create greater deflections above 50Kg. Thus the engineers could create wing that meets the deflection
test, but would then deflect down to a desired ride height at a specified maximum speed.
While this is against the spirit of the rules which prohibit flexible bodywork they meet the test as
defined by the FIA for flexible bodywork, thus the Red Bull and the Ferrari front wings are free to race in
the eyes of the FIA.

13.2 McLaren
Blown diffuser modifications
In Hockenheim McLaren have run the blown diffuser
that they discarded on Friday evening at Silverstone,
with some new modifications. The exhausts have been
moved outwards, with a longer inner section, and the
pipe is now cut off at an angle rather than having a
straight ending. The carbon materials used on the
diffuser's side channel have also been changed.
Changes improved the McLaren T3 floor, including the longer slash cut exhaust pipe
After their problems at Silverstone McLaren brought the second iteration of the blown diffuser to
Germany. Designed to be less sensitive and also t better cope with the heat, the new exhaust and
bodywork were retained for the race. Blowing the diffuser provides more downforce as the flow through

the diffuser is increased. In McLarens case the exhaust blows around the side of the diffuser with a small
window under the rear wings endplate allowing some of the flow to pass inside the diffuser itself.
Although this latter inlet is less advantageously placed compared to Red bulls slot. Known internally at
McLaren as the T3 floor, the matching exhaust system now features a longer tailpipe cut at an angle to
better direct the flow and contain the heat.

What effect does a cut in the exhaust, like above, have on the exiting gasses?
it exposes the exhaust to mix with the free stream air in a desired way. The shape also manipulates the
plume in a way that it does not go onto the wish
bones and floor. The shape also keeps the plume off
the gear box. If you can imagine a normally cut pipe,
like a chimney the gases escape and expand 360
degrees around the pipe orifice, this means for the
old pipe they were running, the gases were
expanding onto the centre of the car which is
unavoidable with the proximity of the pipe. Ferrari
have been through this with their pipes as well. This
burrito shape with it's back and open face ensures
the gas expansion is biased outwardly.








Front wing

13.3 Mercedes
Revised rear wing
Mercedes have introduced a new rear wing in Germany. It has a large opening in the main plane (see red
arrow), which creates something akin to a three-profile rear wing. The solution was introduced in
Monaco last year by McLaren and copied by BMW Sauber. This rear wing is designed to work better with
the car's sophisticated F-duct system.

An open fronted diffuser and slotted rear wing were innovations for Mercedes (both shown yellow)
Along with Williams, Mercedes modified their EBD set up to create an open fronted diffuser. Where as
Williams made their inlet rectangular, Mercedes lifted the entire leading edge of the diffuser from the
flat floor, albeit with a less aggressively sized inlet. Again the diffuser becomes more wing shaped in side
profile, with the exhaust blowing under the leading edge of the surface. This accelerates the flow under
the diffuser creating a lower pressure for more downforce. While it looked like EBD design might be
muted, with the impending ban on diffuser openings for 2011, it seems that aggressively shaped blown
floor will be a feature of the last stages of this season. Along with the new floor, Mercedes had a new
wing aping the design of several others teams slotted rear wing. A narrow 15cm inlet is formed in the
middle of the rear, flanked by bulged walls; this inlet feeds a full width slot at the back of the wing. By
blowing the extra slot the wing circumvents the rules to create a wing with effectively three elements,
allowing the wing to be steeper for more downforce.

13.4 Ferrari
Revised exhaust system
Following on from the new front and rear
wings introduced at Silverstone, in
Hockenheim Ferrari have brought
refinements to the F10's exhaust system and
modified the side channels of their diffuser.
Inset is the first evolution of the exhaust
system, introduced in Valencia, whilst the
main drawing shows the more open
configuration being used in Germany. Strong
qualifying times suggest the changes mean
the team's F-duct, floor and blown diffuser
are now working in much closer unison.

Ferrari brought at Valencia major upgrades to improve the cars performance with the most striking of
them to be the new blown diffuser exhaust pipes system ( inspired by Red Bull ) . The new lower to the
floor placement of the exhaust pipes outlet triggered other major changes like a new sidepod shape ,
revised radiators housed inside the sidepods , new rear suspension geometry and a new gearbox case of
carbon.
The floor exhaust configuration aims to shoot hot gas emissions directly to the lower rear car end to
improve the aerodynamic efficiency of the diffuser and to change airflow management at the inner zone
between the rear wheel and the car body.
standard
At Silverstone and during free testing sessions Ferrari had its exhaust pipes cut off at their end to permit
a stronger interaction of the hot exhaust gases with the rear side airflow coming around the sidepods
bottoms . This configuration was replaced by a new one with elongated pipes towards the rear end to
blow hot emissions stronger to the diffuser . The later revision remained for the race . Both specs , the
cut off and the elongated pipes configuration , can be considered to be extremities of the original design
( for less and stronger interaction with the diffuser respectively ).

cut off end
Elongated
At Hockenheim a revised diffuser is expected to cope better with the new elongated exhaust pipes
system version




Front Wing



13.5 Red Bull

F-duct system modification
There are no large modifications on the RB6 at Hockenheim, with both drivers using the new front wing
which sparked such controversy at Silverstone. There have been minor improvements to the team's F-
duct system, which, as illustrated here, is activated from within the cockpit by the driver covering a
special vent (red arrow) with his left hand.

13.6 Renault


13.7 Williams
Adding an open front to the diffuser (yellow) makes the exhaust now blow under the floor
Williams along with Ferrari were the first of the teams to follow Red Bull in blowing the exhaust gasses
over the diffuser. However at Hockenheim the team introduced a major update to the exhaust blown
diffuser (EBD) concept, by opening the front of the diffuser up to allow the exhaust to blow directly
under the diffuser. outwardly the rest of the blown diffuser set up remains the same, but the normally
continuous section of floor that forms the kick lien in between the floor and diffuser has be redesigned
to form a large open inlet.
This inlet is far larger than the even the second generation Silverstone spec Red Bull floor. Although
blowing over the top of the diffuser creates increased flow underneath the diffuser, the chance to blow
inside the diffuser is a far stronger way of generating downforce. But rather than mould the exhaust
directly into the flow as was the case with the EBD's of the eighties and nineties, the exhaust blows into a
large inlet, which probably reduced the set ups sensitivity to the throttle being open or closed. Although
not the only team to follow this route Williams pace suggests their EBD philosophy is indeed a valid one.

13.8 Toro Rosso
A rare update to the Toro Rosso, with a vented endplate to improve airflow around the front tyre
So far this season Toro Rosso have not been a team for overt technical developments, so far only a
revised diffuser and the addition of a flat footplate to the front wing endplate have been noticed on the
car. But, for Germany the footplate was further developed. Akin to Renaults endplate, the footplate now
features vents to direct airflow down and around the front tyre. Effectively Toro Rosso have made the
old horizontal ledge, narrower and pointed downwards, but as the regulations demand a minimum
surface area and a rounded edge, the team have had to resort to a vented design that retains the same
plan area and radiussed edge.

13.9 Lotus
As result of the weight saving programme that made the debut at Silverstone, Lotus have been able to
place more ballast into the car. Some of this ballast is placed in the front splitter sections demanding the
team fit a support strut to prevent the section flexing.
13.10 Virgin
More updates to the VR-01 included a new splitter and add-ons to the front wing endplate &
bargeboards
As with Lotus, Virgin continued to develop their Major update from Silverstone. Smaller details not
obvious when the car raced at Silverstone is the revised front splitter and bargeboards. whereas the
early season splitter was effectively flat with the side fences, the new versions has dramatic looking
fences to contain the airflow over the splitter and better direct it under and over the floor. In this area
the small bargeboard gained a strake running along its length.
New for Germany was an upturned aerofoil section added to the front wing endplate, although the
device would actually create lift, its purpose it to redirect airflow around the front tyre to reduce drag.

HUNGARY TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
14. HUNGARY TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog Aug, 6 2010]
14.1 Generalities
Hungary comes just 7 days after the German GP and while Hockenheim provided straights and fast turns,
Hungary is far slower. Low speed grip and high downforce being needed to negotiate the slow turns, and
the remaining short straight and two fast turns being far less influential on overall lap times.
With the tight track the Hungaroring also have a bumpy broken surface, with little rubber being laid on
track before the first practice sessions.
Just as important as the layout is the heat. Hungary has a reputation for high ambient temperatures and
these required the teams to open up their cooling outlets to cope with it. Fortunately the rain that was
expected to hinder track time over the weekend never really materialised and were left with the teams
reacting to an increasingly hot and grippy track as the weekend progressed.
14.1.1 Deflecting bodywork

The issues raised around Red Bulls and Ferraris front wing ride height were main topic of technical
debate over the weekend. Red Bulls FOM on board cameras were forward facing for this race and the
moving front wing was now made obvious to those who hadnt noticed earlier in the year. Several
theories have been put forward as to why the front wing appears to run so low to the ground.
Firstly the nose cone itself is bending down; this theory was probably put forward after the nose cone
mounting failing on Vettels car at the British GP. However trackside footage of the nose showed no
misalignment, when the car is at speed with the front wing running close to the ground.
Equally being a primary crash structure its unlikely that any team would want to have any movement in
its mountings. A second theory is that the floor deflects allowing the car to run lower to the ground.
Since front wing ride heights were first raised in 2000, teams have sought to run lower front suspension
ride heights to move the wing closer to the ground, when the car is out on track.
The front splitter commonly called a T-tray or Bib gets in the way. This knife edge component that sits
under the raised section of monocoque will touch the ground and prevent the front end going any lower.
Teams have tried to allow the splitter to hinge upward when it strikes the ground, allowing lower front
ride heights, but the FIA introduced a test to prevent this practice
Subsequently the teams created sprung mounts to meet the 200kg-5mm deflection test, but these were
outlawed in the wake of Mike Coughlans expos of the Ferraris set up secrets provided by Nigel
Stepney. Its possible teams have again engineered a splitter that will deflect at over the 200kg test, but

there will inevitably be additional wear the front skid blocks and plank, which will impinge the rules and
see the car, penalised.
So it remains that the first theory put forward is still the most valid, that the Red Bull wing droops at its
tips, the bend occurring at the point where the outer wing sections meet the FIA mandated neutral
centre section. Trackside Images from the German GP and on board footage back up this claim. It can
clearly be seen the wing is angled downwards at speed and apparently springs back up to horizontal as
the car slows.
Now the FIA have confirmed that the front wing deflection test, which was originally a 50Kg load applied
to the front wing endplate must produce no more than 10mm movement. Will now be upped to 100kg
and 10mm, however critically the FIA will conduct both tests and the wing must create a uniform
increase in deflection for the same increase in load.
This linear reaction to the test load, is to ensure the wing does not has a irregular reaction over the load
range, as its suspected teams have a wing hardly deflects at loads of 50kg, but for any additional load it
will deflect far more. All teams will probably have to review their wings in order to meet to the additional
test; however teams knowingly exploiting flex, may have a larger job on their hands to engineer in the
linear increase in stiffness that the FIA will subject them to in Spa.
With the two week shut down, this may be a logistical challenge to the teams, but there's little doubt
every team will pass the tests in Belgium in three weeks time.

14.2 Red Bull

Front wing controversy
Although TV footage has shown the Red Bull front wing appear to almost touch the track surface at
speed, the rules demand that when static it has to stay 75mm above the ground. Even so the car has
passed all the necessary scrutineering checks, including a rigorous one on Saturday in Hungary with 200
kilogrammes applied to the RB6's underbody and the plank.

14.3 Ferrari
Modified rear diffuser
This drawing from Hungary shows how Ferrari's diffuser has been modified to deal with the exhaust air
now blowing under the floor, with the element just inside the rear tyres (1) now curved. The diffuser's
side channels (2), which used to be more vertical in shape, are now also curved. The modifications are
designed to use the air from the exhaust to better effect.

14.4 McLaren
Running a dedicated high downforce and a new cooling package for this weekend, the car also sported
revisions to its blown diffuser. Following Red bull, Williams and Mercedes, the diffuser sported a raised
leading edge, allowing the exhaust to blow underneath open front of the diffuser for greater downforce.
Revised rear underbody
Since first introducing their exhaust-blown diffuser at Silverstone, McLaren have made many changes to
its configuration. In this drawing you can see the reshaped section of underbody (red arrow) and also the
different, lower position of the exhaust (highlighted in blue) being used on the MP4-25 in Hungary.

14.5 Renault
Renaults extreme rear wing has a deep central V ducting air to a slot in the back of the wing
Already running highly complex front and rear wings, Renault none the less further developed these part
sin Hungary. The rear wing now sports an extreme W profile, the middle of the wing forming a deep V
shape well below the usual line of the rear wing. Within this "V" is an inlet for the blown slot, the hollow
main wing sections being clearly visible inside the "V".
The depth of the wing the extra slot at the rear are aimed at creating a far steeper front wing, in order to
gain more downforce, a necessity at Hungary. However deeper wings create more at the wing tips as the
air spilling off the wing, form vortices which in turn induce drag, slowing top speed. Without an F-Duct
Renault altered the outer sections of the wing to offset some of the pressure differences that creates
these vortices. Therefore the outer 5cm of the wings span form a completely different profile, the flap

section being much longer in comparison to the main plane. Reducing the load created by the wing and
hence reducing the tendency to create drag.
At the front the Valencia spec wing was slightly modified with narrower winglets and a small stay to
support the winglet and endplate moving as the car runs over bumps and kerbs.
The Hungaroring is one of the most demanding

circuits on the calendar regarding downforce,
and hence many teams introduce new
components to improve the car's handling
around the twisty track. Renault have one of
the most obvious changes as it introduces a
new rear wing, adding quite a bit of downforce
to the car. The new device builds on the drop in
the wing's centre and extends on that idea, now
adding a small slot underneath the main wing.
The most interesting bit of this configuration
may well be the non-straight slot between the
two main panels, which now are basically just
one element with carefully design slot gap. As Renault still do not have an F-duct and while their plans on
this are unclear, this is surely an attempt to fight back on the ever improving blown rear wings.

New diffuser
Old diffuser

14.6 Mercedes
Having run their open front diffuser in Germany, it was decided to run the older blown diffuser for
Hungary. The team were finding that the exhaust blowing directly on the leading edge of the diffuser was
overheating the carbon fibre despite the heat reflective coating. With the result that the shape of the
diffuser, which is critical to its aerodynamic performance was changing. Mercedes are understood to be
seeking a further supply of glass-ceramic matrix carbon fibre, a material that unlike normal carbon fibre
can withstand temperatures up to 1000c. However there are limited suppliers of this advanced material
and even that material in extremely expensive and in short supply.

14.7 Williams
No major upgrades were detected on the Williams, although a new cooling outlet at the tail of the
engine cover was run to cope with the low speeds and high temperatures of Hungary. Additionally, aero
tests were carried out on Friday morning. Along similar lines to those of McLaren pre-season aero tests,
the FW32 was fitted wit an array of pressure sensors in the sidepods undercut. These would map the
airflow as it passes around the sidepod; this was probably conducted with a view towards their 2011 car.

14.8 Force India
One of the last of the top teams to adopt a blown diffuser were Force India
Have taken some time to react to the Blown diffuser trend, being the final Mercedes engine team to
switch to low exhaust exits. Friday practice was used to evaluate the blown diffuser on Sutils car and the
decision was made not to run the set up on either car from Saturday practice onward, while the team
further tune and develop the set up. The VJM03's design was a simple take on the solution, the exhausts
re-organised to create a low exit, the sidepods being reprofiled and gaining a bare carbon fibre cover
over the exhaust pipework.
While the diffuser was outwardly identical to the standard car, aside from extensive heat shielding
largely in the form of silver reflective coatings on the suspension, diffuser, brake ducts and wing
endplates. In its early guide at least the exhaust blows over the top of the diffuser and no attempt
appears to have been made open up the front of the diffuser to pass the exhaust flow underneath.
Despite the two week factory shut down the team expect to race the updated set up in Spa.

With the expense of tooling the new exhausts, a dyno test for tuning the exhausts to the engine, the
demand for five sets of diffusers and all the wind tunnel and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
programming, it could cost up to an estimated $1.5 million to introduce.

14.9 Toro Rosso
Major developments at Toro Rosso, with a new diffuser and nose cone vanes (yellow)
Following on from the front wing updates in Germany, the now independent team developed the Red
Bull inspired STR05 further in Hungary. No longer following the Arian Newey concepts the car took
inspirations from two the teams, namely Renault for the nose treatment and McLaren for the diffuser
layout. Most visible was the revised nose cone, this took the form of bonded on vanes hanging vertically
from the lower edges of the nose cone, similar the curtain-like features on the previous two Renaults
cars. Equally the vented front wing endplate, which took Renaults slotted footplate idea, first raced in
Germany was aided by an additional longitudinal vent on the footplate.
At the rear Toro Rosso's third iteration of their diffuser was a major change away from the versions run
previously this season. The separation and outlet shape of the upper and lower diffuser now takes a
similar to McLarens rectangular design, even the addition of protruding section beneath the tail lamp are
similar to McLarens ideas. However while the exit shape is similar the Toro Rosso has a far simpler upper
deck arrangement, and the very wide set up joined to the beam wing as per the MP4-25.
These changes are suggesting the teams own design group are finding their own directions away from
those of Red Bull Technologies. Who, didnt actually design the current car, but provided the design for
the 2009 car from which its design is strongly based upon. Perhaps the 2011 Toro Rosso will be yet a
further departure from their current design.

New front wing
Toro Rosso have introduced a new maximum-downforce front wing in Hungary. It features a vertical
section (1) which creates a kind of skirt under the high shape of the standard nose. The new endplate,
introduced in Hockenheim, has been revised to include a second horizontal slot (2), which better 'seals'
this section to the ground.

14.10 Lotus
No major changes were introduced at Lotus, however the all carbon fibre suspension, earmarked fro this
race to replace the Carbon over titanium suspension has been delayed and should be in place for Spa
along with the final updates to chassis and aero. Although a Monza specific aero package has been
developed due to the unique nature of the track.

BELGIUM TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
15. BELGIUM TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: jamesallenonf1.com]
15.1 Generalities
F1 returned to one of its greatest tracks when the Spa circuit in Belgium hosted Round13 . This is a track
that has everything, slow hairpins and chicanes, long straights, fast turns and a lot of gradient changes.
Despite the emphasis on the challenging turns Spa has become a low to medium downforce since the
advent of the 2.4 litre engines and slick tyres. Most of the fast turns are at such a high speed that even
relatively small wings can create the downforce to keep the car adhered to the track. While the slowest
turns are at such a pace that wings are a smaller part of the grip equation.
This year the ever present rain influenced nearly every session and perhaps prompted teams to run more
downforce than they would have in the dry.
Spa is also a very demanding track for engines, nearly every driver had a fresh engine and with the other
power hungry track at Monza coming up next, we will be seeing most drivers near the end of the their
engine allocation. Most drivers have now used six engines, leaving them two for the remaining six
races. Following Spa both Ferrari drivers as well as Sebastian Vettel have just one fresh engine left,
presuming they will use this one for Monza they will compete in the final four races with part-used
engine or suffer grid penalties. Meanwhile, the Ferrari engined Sauber of Pedro de La Rosa is the only
driver with all eight engines used. Early season unreliability will see de La Rosa picking the best of his
engines to last the remaining five races.
Following pressure from several team managers in Hungary, the FIA had new front wing deflection tests
for Belgium. The test, which places a greater load on the outer tip of the front wing, was carried out
over the course of the weekend and no team failed the new challenge. However it was visible that
movement of the front wing was still evident as the cars accelerated to high speed and then braked. This
was most obvious as Vettel chased Button in the race, leading them to crash and Buttons retirement. As
Button moved left to right and back again in the braking area, Vettel simultaneously moved left.
Through the course of the two cars manoeuvres Vettels front wing was exposed to clear air, Buttons
wake and free air again. This change in airflow affected one side of the wing then the other made the
entire front see-saw violently up and down around the two mounting pylons. While the wing was
obviously subject to unusual aerodynamic conditions, the shear amount of movement was
surprising. Certainly Vettel would have suffered aero balance shifts which may have contributed to his
loss of control. A similar effect was visible as Webber closed on and crashed into Kovalainen in
Valencia. Clearly flex may have some performance benefits but perhaps also some downsides.

15.1.1 Revised floor flex test

The FIA carry out load tests to check whether a car's floor flexes beyond the permitted 5mm (yellow
highlighted area) under a 200kg load. The
test, which uses a piston in the centre of
the floor, was introduced at the 2007
Spanish Grand Prix following the
controversy surrounding Ferrari's
'moveable' floor device. Stricter front-wing
flex tests have been introduced here at Spa
and at the next round in Italy a stricter
floor test will be added. Whilst the same
weight will be used, the test will be applied
to the side of the floor too. It will also be
prohibited to run a section of plank less than 100cm in length.
15.1.2 Revised front-wing flex test

The front wing must be no lower
than 75mm above the reference
plane, which is the lowest point of
the car without the plank (yellow
dotted line). To check compliance
with this rule, prior to this weekend's
Belgian Grand Prix, in scrutineering a
load of 50kg was applied to the
endplates (smaller red arrow), with a
permitted flex of up to 10mm. After
rival teams voiced suspicions that
the front wings of Red Bull and
Ferrari were flexing more than this at
speed, the FIA has doubled the load applied in the test to 100kg, now measured in the middle of the
wing's side section (larger red arrow), with a permitted flex of 20mm. Both Red Bull and Ferrari cleared
scrutineering at Spa.

15.2 McLaren
For Spa the front wing was revised with a new endplate and a shortened cascade
Rafts of small changes were made to the McLaren to suit the Spa circuit. The major change was revisions
to the front wing assembly, with both the endplate and cascade being different. For the endplate the
slots in its vertical face were changed, while the cascade was shortened to only reach the fence that
divides the inner and outer parts of the wing. Both these changes would have been to reduce down force
and drag, through a smaller wing area and improved flow around the front wheels. The team also ran the
older specification wing with its simpler wing spans, for this wing the team still ran the full width
cascade.

McLaren added a second slot to their floor
Towards the rear, the floor ahead of the wheel gained a second slot, these slots aid the flow passing
under the floor to pass around the rear tyres. Lastly the McLaren Mercedes engine note appeared rough
when the car was on the overrun through turns. Most apparent at the slower turns, this is believed to be
an engine mapping tweak aimed at maintaining exhaust flow even when the throttle is closed. This
system was first apparent on the Red Bulls, who use the mapping in qualifying.
As their blown diffuser needs exhaust flow to create downforce, when the car is slowing, the exhausts
provide less flow, creating less downforce just when the car needs it. So they alter the engine mapping to
maintain a more constant flow, without continuing to drive the wheels.
Most probably the systems retard the ignition when the engine is on the overrun; this sees the air-fuel
mixture burn in the exhaust rather than the cylinder, which creates a continuing stream of gasses
through the exhaust. The downside is that this creates a huge amount of heat in the cylinder head and
exhaust, not to mention burns additional fuel.
Most teams are looking at this solution as Red bull have done for qualifying only and for limited use in
the race to minimise the unreliability created by the heat and the need for additional weight in fuel to be
carried to support the system. If McLaren and Mercedes have found a system that can be used through
the race without fear of overheating issue then they will have a small advantage from the set up.

15.3 Ferrari
Ferrari made a major step with their car for spa, with a new diffuser as well as new rear wing. The
diffuser was a development work stream long in development, but it seems the blown version of the
diffuser was brought to the races first. With this new diffuser design they are catching up to where
Renault, McLaren and red Bull have got to with their double diffusers.
Although not visible when on track, their diffusers feature a much later inlet under the car that feeds
into the upper deck of the diffuser. This larger inlet drives more flow through the diffuser to create more
downforce. However to create a larger hole in the flat floor it needs to be partially masked by curved
vanes inline with the flat floor. These meet the flat bottom rule as they are curved to the maximum
allowed radius and do not create an opening visible from below.
Externally the only visible changes are a slight alteration to the horizontal sections splitting the upper
lower decks of the diffuser. To aid top speed on the long fast sections at spa, Ferrari had two wing
specifications. The first was the usual tapered rear wing, with shallower sections towards the endplates.
Massa preferred this wing to the newer format. This newer format sported an additional inlet in the
main plane as exploited by many teams. The narrow 15cm inlet is ducting through an expanding hollow
section inside the wing to feed a wider slot in the rear face of the wing. It was Alonso who preferred to
race this format wing.
In Belgium, Ferrari have been running

a modified diffuser and floor, which
are similar to the ones used by
McLaren and Renault. The size of the
longitudinal inlet is shown clearly by
the amount of visible road surface
(see area highlighted in yellow).
There are two longitudinal fairings in
order to respect the rule dimensions.

Ferrari have raced a new version of their exhaust

blown diffuser at Spa. The team did not change
anything on it since the exhaust blowing
principle was copied from Red Bull and
introduced at Valencia. The team decided to
learn it as they ran it, and now is the first update
on the concept. As marked in the image, the
profile of the lower and upper deck have been
changed to improve downforce generation by
means of the complex flow from the floor, the
exhaust and around the sidepods.
Ferrari have brought a new lower-downforce rear wing to Belgium, which will be used by Felipe Massa
during qualifying and in the race. The
revised endplates feature Red Bull-
inspired gills, while the wing's main
profile has a smaller flap and no
longer features a slot.

Alonso's rear wing on the grid at Spa
For qualifying and the race, held in changeable weather conditions, Ferrari ran two different
specifications of rear wing. Fernando Alonso ran a slightly higher downforce wing, which was therefore
more of a wet set up, while Felipe Massa ran the lower downforce example. Massas was the newer
design and it featured different end plates with curved gills similar to Red Bull, no slot between elements
and a smaller main wing element. Performance wise the differences were subtle but still noticeable. On
the fastest laps in qualifying, Massas car was 2 km/h faster through the speed trap than Alonsos and
was a tenth of a second slower through the middle sector of the lap, which is a good indictor of
downforce.
Massa's rear wing on the Spa grid
Both wings incorporate the drag reducing F Duct device, which showed its greatest advantage of the
season so far around Spa. With the need for high downforce in the middle sector and good straight line
speed on the two long straights in sectors one and two, cars equipped with F ducts could have it both
ways and the device was worth half a second per lap here, a huge amount by F1 standards for a single
component. Next time out on the high speed Monza circuit it is likely that the teams will not use the F

Duct. As the elements of the rear wing will be so small, its hard to incorporate the device and the
performance gain is small in any case.
15.4 Red Bull
This new low drag beam wing was tried but not raced in the wet conditions
Red Bull reported no developments to the front wing, adding they were running the same front wings
from Hungary and successfully passed the revised FIA deflection tests. With the uncertain weather,
Friday was used to trial a new beam wing, but this was discarded. The beam wing had cut down sections
the trailing towards the endplates. This was probably a low drag set up aimed for the low downforce
requirement of the track in dry conditions. As the weather affected all three days running the team stuck
with their usual beam wing.

15.5 Renault
Renault were innovative in the ducting of their F-Duct
At Spa Renault finally brought their development of the f-duct to a race weekend. Like the other teams
catching up with McLaren, they needed to find a way to route airflow into the ducting then into the
cockpit and rear wing. Their solution is certainly innovative and surprisingly tidy. Unable to alter their
monocoque the team have fitted the ducting around the roll structure. Starting with the high pressure
inlets, these are creating by two snorkels either side of the roll hoop, these are formed by the engine
cover and are not bonded into the roll structure.
They then converge into the duct in the truncated shark fin, the fluid switch sits approximately behind
the HP logo on the tail fin, this slits the duct into three, one that feed the rear wing when the system is
engaged, then another provides the alternative route for the airflow curving down and exiting either side
of the rear wing support.
Cleverly the control duct that the driver closes to turn on the system is created by a rectangular duct
threading down from the fluid switch to around the engine and up over the cockpit side padding before
entering the side of the cockpit by the steering wheel.
To achieve this routing the duct is actually formed over the top of the drivers headrest, from a front
view you can see the left-hand headrest is slightly higher than the one on the right. By doing this Renault
have created an acceptably large duct and not altered their monocoque. Renault have chosen to exit the
duct into the main plane rather than the flap, the bulbous duct clearly exit the shark fin and curves down
to enter the wing, the team preferring not to extend their shark fin Red Bull style all the way to the rear
wing.
Their use of the F-duct proved so successful that they race the device and attributed at least half of their
performance improvement to the F-duct. The balance of their performance improvement was probably
wit the slightly revised diffuser and changes to the way its blown by the exhausts.

15.6 Mercedes
While other teams have successfully raced with their exhausts blowing inside the diffuser for several
races, Mercedes are still struggling with their second generation blown diffuser. Exhaust heat is causing
problems with the carbon fibre of the diffuser; different glass ceramic composites and coating have
failed to prevent the 800c exhaust heat deforming the diffusers aerodynamic shape.
As Mercedes have opened the front of the diffuser allow the exhaust to blow above and below the floor,
the exhaust heat hits the leading edge of the diffuser, which is far more aggressive than it passing
parallel over the bodywork. Ross Brawn confirms there is more work to do achieve a complete solution.
Despite being the factory Mercedes and perhaps because of the heat issues with the diffuser, the team
did not appear to use any form of Overrun mapping as McLaren have done at Spa. While the additional
flow would have been useful in creating downforce, the additional heat from the exhaust would only
exacerbate their problems with the carbon fibre overheating.

ITALY TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
16. ITALY TECHNICAL REVIEW

16.1 Generalities
Monza remains as much of an enigma on the F1 Calendar as Monaco does being the polar opposite of
the Monegasque street track, as Monza is largely about top speed, heavy braking and shuffling around
slow chicanes. This year the threat of rain before the weekend fortunately gave way to sunny weather,
leaving the teams with a tricky choice on set up. Monza rewards top speed, but still the need to slow
down to round the few turns means some wing is needed to gain the ideal laptime.
This year teams had to choose between an ultra low drag set up or a moderate to high drag set up, in
some cases aided by an F-duct. The variety of solutions created a large span in speed trap figures, with
low drag F-ductless cars being perhaps the fastest one lap cars, but the stability of slightly more
downforce, aided by an f-duct appeared the ideal set up for race day. Other Monza specific technical
considerations for the teams were managing brake temperatures and springing the car soft enough to
cope with kerbs while stiff enough to keep the car stable at high speed.
At the Italian race this year the FIA introduced new tests to prevent teams deflecting their front
splitter. This is the floor section that sits exposed beneath the race monocoque. Having this section
hinge and bend upwards allows the teams to run lower front ride heights to gain more front
downforce. Although subject to a 100Kg load test already its been thought teams have still been able
move the splitter while meeting the scrutineers tests. Now the leading edge of the floor must be tested
at 200Kg and then additional test places a lesser load 10cm either side of the cars centreline.

16.1.1 Additional floor load test

The FIA carry out load tests to ascertain whether a car's floor flexes beyond the permitted 5mm under a
200kg load. The test, which uses a piston in the centre of the floor (see inset), was introduced at the
2007 Spanish Grand Prix following
the controversy surrounding
Ferrari's 'moveable' floor device. At
Monza the sport's governing body
has introduced an even stricter test,
which sees the same weight also
applied to the side of the floor,
100mm from the centre line (see
main illustration).
16.1.2 New regulation - plank length

At Monza, the FIA have introduced a new rule which means it is now prohibited to run a section of plank
less than 1000mm in length. The
plank is a hard wooden strip (also
known as a skid block) fitted down
the middle of a car's underside (see
red arrow). This regulation is
designed to prevent teams from
running 'articulated' planks that are
made up of multiple pieces.

16.2 Ferrari
Ferrari used elements of their Spa package to form their Monza set up. Ferrari aimed for a medium drag
set up and to achieve this also tried running without the F-duct in Friday practice. In the end the f-duct
was retained albeit with modified ducting leading to the spa rear wing. At the front the wing has been
altered with a completely straight leading edge, the win no longer drops down fro the neutral centre
section. In this format the car was amongst the fastest cars on the straights. Another change for Monza
was a slightly modified sidepod this now allows for a cooling panel towards the front top of the sidepod,
similar the solution McLaren used. While wasn't used in Monza to reduce drag, it may be fitted with an
opening at the upcoming races. Lastly Ferrari retained a single stay on the front edge of their splitter, the
vertical metal blade connecting the floor to the car appeared unchanged from previous versions, but its
likely that the detail of how the stay is affixed both ends has been altered to suit the rules clarification.
Ferrari's Fernando Alonso and Felipe

Massa ran different rear aero packages
on their cars at the last round in Spa.
But at Monza, the Italian team are
running the same low-downforce
package on both F10s. The rear wing is
fitted with a revised F-duct, which
features a much smaller pipe inside the
engine cover. In addition, the
endplates no longer have gills and the
main plane and flap have a smaller
chord.
Both Ferraris are also a running revised front

wing at Monza as part of the team's low-
downforce package for this circuit. It features
an almost straight main plane (2), and the
main flap (1) and upper flap (3) both have a
far lower angle of incidence than seen at
most tracks.

16.3 McLaren
Despite being the pioneers of the F-duct McLaren were largely undecided on whether to use it at
Monza. Notwithstanding its gain aero efficiency by boosting top speed or allowing more wings to run for
the same top speed, it seems the decision was about going for one extreme or another in setup.
So the drivers tried both ultra low downforce or the much higher f-ducted downforce packages, in the
end their strategy was split depending on their driver preference, with driving style and race strategy
being the deciding factor. Hamilton ran a very low aspect rear wing, in doing so being amongst the
fastest cars in a straight line, this set up probably gave the fastest laptime for a single lap. With
Hamiltons preference for a car that slides and moves around a lot, plus the chance to go for pole
position, this strategy appeared to be well suited to him wereas Button with a driving preference for
keeping the wheels inline and a race orientated strategy, went for a very large rear wing complete with
drag busting F-duct.
With more grip from the extra downforce Buttons aims were two fold, boost his confidence with a
grippier car and save the tyres on race with less sliding. For Button he had a 10-15kph speed deficit to
his rivals, only the cars ability to run fast through the Lesmo bends kept him from being vulnerable from
being passed on the following main straight.
In the end both strategies failed, Hamiltons due to his poor qualifying lap putting him further down the
grid. While Buttons forecast of his rivals suffering tyre degradation in the race proved unfounded as even
the softer option tyre could last the entire race without major loss in laptime.
With hindsight an intermediate strategy of a slightly less high downforce package on a f-ducted rear wing
may have brought a better result, this more conservative strategy may have been a safer bet for a team
battling the championship at a track known to be weak one for its rivals Red bull.
Technically McLarens developments this weekend were the non F-duct top body and rear wing. So
integral to the cars design is the F-duct this year, that this is the first time the mp4-25 has been seen
without the shark fin, snorkel and internal duct work. It is perhaps surprising that the team opted for a
simple low line (i.e. non shark fin) engine cover at track where straight lien stability is at a premium. In
response to the splitter test and rules clarification, the McLaren splitter now runs without any form of
stay, previously the team ran a simple blade like single stay.

Its again confusing to understand how McLaren made a decision to remove reinforcement to the splitter
at a time when the test demands a far stiffer set
up. Perhaps McLaren previous floor had some
ability to hinge at its rear mounting and then be
supported by the stay. The solution to meet the
new rules was to mount the splitter more solidly
at its rear and no longer require a stay at the
front. McLaren team mates Jenson Button and
Lewis Hamilton decided to run different set-ups
for the Monza race. Button used the F-duct and
the Spa-spec rear wing, which features quite a big
flap. Hamilton decided to use a very low-
downforce rear wing, shown here, with last year's
end plates, and didn't use the F-duct. On Saturday
the set-up gave Hamilton a 14km/h advantage
over Button, with the qualifying speed trap
recording 344.3 and 329.5 respectively for the
duo.
As Monza is by far the lowest downforce circuit

on the racing calendar, teams usually develop
new front and rear wings to achieve higher top
speeds. As did McLaren, bringing a new front
wing with significantly less frontal surface and
without an F-duct, a first for McLaren this year.
After both drivers tested a variety of setups,
including a change of rear wings, only Lewis
Hamilton decided to use it beyond Friday
practices. Jenson Button meanwhile opted for
the higher downforce setup with a rear wing
similar to the one used at Turkey. The strategy
differences are interesting, as Hamilton is
among the top three at the speed traps, while Button is only quicker than both HRT cars. The latter
though is second on the grid, 3 places up to teammate Hamilton. And while top speeds may be a concern
for last year's champion, his team is hoping that the higher downforce will make sure the option tyres
last longer while others may start struggling after 10 to 15 laps.

16.4 Red Bull

In contrast to their rivals the Red Bull appeared largely unchanged for Monza, in both their moderate
downforce aero set up and their revised splitter. Through the speed traps Red bulls were in the bottom
half of the timesheets for qualifying but some how gained 10kph for the race, placing them far more
respectably toward the top of the speed trap figures. Having been the source of the splitter allegations
and with the teams denials they have anything special in their splitter. It was perhaps no surprise the
Red bull splitter set up appeared identical in Monza. With the carbon fibre stay at the front of the
splitter. However it was reported the RB6 only just failed its first deflection test and was modified
overnight to pass the test the next day.

16.5 Renault
Renault made these V cuts into the frotn wign for brake cooling
Like most other teams Renault opted to a moderate downforce package, however both its front and rear
wings were unusual in having shaped trailing edges. On their front wing the wing sported a deep "V"
shaped cut out. As this missing section was ahead of the front brake ducts, its possible that this
alteration may have been to provide more airflow to he brakes, but equally the shape would produce
vortices that could airflow around the inside the of the front wheel. Equally hard to fathom is the
reverse effect on the rear wing, where the wing had small triangular sections extending front he trailing
edge where the wing met the endplate and slot gap separator.

In Monza, Renault have been running a

new front wing. This is based on the
previous version, but it has been simplified
with no upper flaps and a multiple
endplate section (bottom arrow). The 'V'
cut in the main flap (top arrow) creates a
kind of vortex, which energises the airflow
under the car's central section.
Apart from its new front wing, Renault also

brought a new rear wing to Monza. While at
basically remained the same, the upper panel
was cut out at its trailing edge, apart from the
attachment points to the endplates as well as
the midpoint of the wing. Also marked with
arrows is the F-duct exit which blows air when
the stalling device is not operating.
Interestingly, this is the only air exhaust one can
see on the Renault from behind, in sharp
contrast with Red Bull. Renault have designed
their sidepods to be long and fairly big, even at
the back, so that all hot air from within the pods
are blown onto the diffuser. This design is particularly interesting for rear downforce as the hot air can
help energise the diffuser's decks. As said, Red Bull have taken a completely different approach with
extremely narrow sidepods, but the RB6 features a large opening below the F-duct exit to get rid of its
hot air.

16.6 Williams
As a drag saving measure Williams made these indents into the rear wing
Williams like Renault chose to alter the trailing edge of its rear wing to manage drag, however
contrasting Renaults approach Williams made their wing cut-in at the joins to the endplate and slot gap
separators. In Williams case their low drag solution, used low downforce and no f-duct. While their
splitter was outwardly unchanged, since their removal of the snow plough bargeboard, their splitter has
had thick cross section almost to the leading the edge of the floor. Thus no stay is employed to stiffen
the structure.

16.7 Mercedes
To meet the new deflection test, Mercedes use a V shaped floor stay
At a circuit with few challenging corners, where the car requires little downforce. The problematic
layout and aerodynamics of the W01 were nullified to allow the car to be competitive once more.
Aiding the car cars speed in a straight lien was the Mercedes F-duct, this device was originally passive, in
that it uses increasing airspeed to activate the stalling effect, without driver interaction.However, in
recent races the drivers have been seen covering a cockpit duct to stall the wing, even though not
external routing of the duct to the rear wing is evident. Its believed the F-duct routes to the rear wing
alongside the engine and gearbox, through the beam wing and up the endplates. Thus the entire system
of high pressure feed and fluid switch must be accommodated within the rear wing. Despite the
evidence that an F-duct is being used, this solution seems unlikely as only a very small duct could be
routed through a tortuous path to control the rear wing. Perhaps the system overcomes the duct design
with a very high pressure feed from the inlet near the front suspension.
To meet the revised floor test, Mercedes creates a novel "V" shaped splitter support. As the test applies
the load at points up to 10cm from the cars centre line, Mercedes have designed a stay the aims to
accept this offset load.

16.8 Toro Rosso
As well as trying an F-Duct the STR5 raced a blown diffuser for the first time
Having completed a straight-line test at Vairano the week before the race, Toro Rosso brought yet more
fruits of their own development programme. No longer using Red Bull technologies as their
development resource, STR now create the entire car and its new parts from their base in Faenza. After
recent major updates it was a surprise to see such a large step brought to the car this weekend, with
both a blown diffuser and f-duct tested on Friday. Their f-duct follows common practice with a high
pressure feed taken from behind the roll hoop and a venting duct exiting under the rear wing. In a
stylish solution STR moulded the high pressure inlet into the leading edge of the shark fin and unlike
Ferraris similar placed inlet, left the duct fully exposed and not split by the shark fin extending forwards
to the roll hoop. where a the f-duct was on tried on Friday, their blown diffuser was brought and raced
without the apparent heating or stability issues other teams have suffered. In essence the design
follows Red Bulls lead with a slash cut exhaust exiting close the bodywork. While the driver controlled f-
duct will need to be dropped for next year, the blown diffuser can carry over to the 2011 car, providing a
useful boost in low speed downforce.
A with McLaren Toro Rosso deleted their front splitter stay and still met the deflection test. Their
previous stay was externally similar to Red bulls design and now the floor is unsupported at its leading
edge.

16.9 Sauber
Sauber raced revised front and rear wings to save drag at Monza
As one of the ultra low downforce teams Saubers ran new wings both ends. Their frotn wing uses much
of the normal wings structure, but the inboard ends of the flap were feathered as Renault have adopted
this year. While the rear wings low aspect ratio sees the top edge of the wing far below that maximum
height allowed for rear wings.

16.10 Virgin
As is normal for the tail end teams at Monza, virgin opted for an ultra low downforce set up, their front
and rear wing being perhaps the smallest on the grid. With a very flat two-piece rear wing and a front
wing with the flaps trimmed to a much smaller plan area. While the other visible development was to
use two small stays to support the leading edge of the floor and meet the offset-load deflection test.
Virgin Racing have still not given up on development of their 2010 car, and as a result they brought a
new rear and front wing to the high speed circuit. While the rear wing is still simple and has less drag
through its reduced panel surface, the front wing is a major change. At least it is for Virgin, one of the
new teams. It is well known that Wirth Research and Virgin aim to do cost effective development and
only change what gives the most benefit. The front wing endplates are therefore retained, except for the
removal of a small winglet on the inside of the plates. The wing's panels though are much smaller, with
the largest surface mainly located in front of the wheels, a crucial decision in trying to limit drag from the
rotating wheels. The cut of the panel also allows more clean airflow into the brake duct, another crucial
performance differentiator at Italy.

16.11 Lotus
Lotus matched Virgins set up and developments for Monza, with a very flat rear wing and trimmed front
wing flaps. Then using twin floor stays to meet the off-set load test. One new feature is revised winglets
fitted to the outside edge of the front wing endplates. Initial a vertical turning vane; these are now much
more curved "r" shaped devices.

16.12 HRT
Where as every other team had new or modified wings for the low drag demands of the Monza track,
HRT were the exception. No longer having Dallara contracted to develop the car, the team are without
the resources to design, test and make new parts. Equally the cologne based team are not adequately
resourced to modify the wings in a safe manner. Thus they were forced to run their standard wing sets
backed off to minimum downforce settings.

SINGAPORE TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
17. SINGAPORE TECHNICAL REVIEW

[Source: Craig Scarboroughs blog October,1st 2010]
17.1 Generalities
Singapore hosts a street race that compares closely to the needs found in Monaco. Marina Bay is all
about downforce and as it marks the start of the final season string of flyaway races, the teams used this
race to produce their last major updates to the cars. Developments will still continue beyond this race,
but the logistics of getting large components out to the races mean that the remaining changes are likely
to be small add-ons rather than the developments seen in Singapore.
With the tracks many turns, teams turned to Monaco spec wings and add-on winglets for grip. Despite
the reasonably long straights, many teams opted to run without an F-duct, preferring to ensure their rear
wing did not have air from the f-duct bleed underneath the wing and lose downfroce. Equally Singapore
is a hard track on brakes and teams fitted their largest brake ducts, Renault and McLaren made efforts to
ensure airflow off the front wing reached the brake ducts.

17.2 McLaren
McLarens front end was revised with dramatic new cascades and a second snowplough under
the nose itself (yellow)
After disappointment in recent races, McLaren arrived in Singapore with an updated car made up of new
front wing treatments and a simplified diffuser. Their new front wing is based on the Silverstone wing
with its split inner and outer spans. While the flaps and endplates remained similar, the cascade
arrangement and the undernose fin had been changed. These changes were a last minute development,
originally part of the planned Suzuka update, but instead were rushed over in Jonathan Neales hand
baggage to Marina Bay. Where the old iteration of the wing used a single large curved cascade sitting
above the wing, the Singapore spec split this into two matching the main wing underneath. The outer
section was affixed to the wings endplate and features a louvered endplate similar to that used for rear
wings. This reduces the vortex created by the high pressure above the wing, which provides less
disruption to the airflow around the inner face of the wheel.
The inner section of cascade largely follows the shape of the old element, but is now mounted on curved
section sprouting up from the split in the main wing. These new cascades are probably a further step in
dividing the flow that passes around the front tyre, possibly even improving flow the front brake ducts,
which sit behind the split in the cascades.
Almost unseen and largely unnoticed was the new snow plough section fitted under the nose, which was
revised for this race. A second element has been added in between the main snow plough and the nose

cone above it. This development was probably aimed at creating more downfroce, although the flow
trailing from the device may also aid flow around the sidepods.
At the rear McLaren tried the diffuser without the complex arched fences in the lower middle
section, these first appeared after the blown diffuser was introduced and may be a sing that the
exhausts effect on the diffuser is being better managed upstream.

Singapore Front Wing Analysis

(September23, 2010)
McLarens Singapore Front Wing Cascade Treatment
The cascade split aids airflow around the outside and inner face of the tyre

17.3 Ferrari
Changes to the Ferrari are certainly suiting the recent circuits, as both the Monza and Singapore updates
were successful. However Ferrari are slowing the development to the F10 in preparation for the 2011
car. Small changes may still make it to the F10, but no major items are now expected in the forthcoming
races. Changes were made to the floor and the front wing endplate for Marina Bay. Only the endplate
was visible externally, with the vane mounted on the footplate being shifted further back to
approximately mid way along the endplate.
The Ferrari drivers had three

different front wings to choose from
on Friday at Marina Bay - a Monaco-
spec, a Silverstone-spec and a new
Singapore-spec. Felipe Massa tested
the new one, but spent more time on
the Monaco version with its single
flap. Fernando Alonso alternated
between the Silverstone and
Singapore specs, which differ only in
the small fin on the outside of the
endplate, which has been moved
backwards by around 8cm. Both
drivers went on to qualify and race
with the new wing. Ferrari also have
a new floor, revised in the tea-tray
section.

17.4 Red Bull

In qualifying and the race in Singapore, Red Bull used a new diffuser, modified both in the tea-tray
section at the front (not shown) and
in the critical area in front of the rear
tyres. Here a bigger duct, angled
more away from the longitudinal, is
an attempt to better manage the
airflow to the top of the diffuser's
side section. Slightly different
exhaust positions mean the pipes are
always blowing under and inside the
diffuser's side channels.
Red Bull produced a double blown rear wing for Singapore, the slot fed by the bulged leading edge
inlet provides more downforce
Announcing they will bring developments to every remaining race, Red Bull are pressing hard to maintain
their pace. Singapore brought changes in three areas of the car: the front wing, the splitter and the rear
wing. Firstly a small development to the merged wing endplate design, saw an additional slot put into
the flap section near the opening in the endplate. Previously the Red Bull wing could have been
described as a 3 element wing in its mid section and a two element profile towards the endplate. This
latest change makes the wing three elements at the endplate, to allow greater angle of attack and less
chance of stalling.
Having said that their splitter and stay were largely unchanged for the new deflection tests at Monza, at
Marina bay we saw a revised splitter and stay arrangement on the RB6. The splitter gained a new front
profile, complete with curious bulges atop the leading edge of the splitter. Plus the stay was also revised
being more like a simple rod, than the flat plate that had previously been used.
Such are the high ride heights for this street circuit, the rear facing front Camera showed now evidence
of the splitter grounding excessively under braking. The splitter changes were also allied to revisions to
the floor ahead of the rear tyres, with the two scoops being replaced one larger angled scoop.
While the last change to the rear was picked up on by several rival team principals in interviews over the
weekend. Red Bull now have produced a wing blown not only by the f-duct, but also by a large bulged
inlet at the front of the main plane. Whereas the F-duct aims to stall the wing and reduce downforce,
this new inlet feeds a full width slot on the rear of the wing to allow more downfroce to be created. A
similar solution is also employed on the flap which sports a simple 15cm slot. This solution has been
used by many teams, notably McLaren, Renault and Mercedes.
Red Bull have brought a new front wing to Singapore, based on the one they introduced at Silverstone,
which features a low position for the
television cameras. As well as the two
vertical slots to the rear of the
endplate, there is an additional
vertical slot at the front of the
endplate to avoid the creation of a
vortex when it's working in
conjunction with the planes and the
endplate itself. For qualifying and the
race, however, both Sebastian Vettel
and Mark Webber decided to use the
original Silverstone wing.

17.5 Renault
Again Renault produced a revised front wing, this time the slightly narrower front wing that creates a
larger flat footplate section outboard of the wing. The usual "r" shaped vane fitted in to the footplate,
was revised to create a much more curved vane, with a distinct wing shape to the upper section.

17.6 Mercedes
Mercedes finally exploited the space under the chassis for turning vanes
Although Ross Brawn continues to be optimistic about the 2011 cars development, the W01 still received
more updates this weekend. With the troublesome open fronted blown diffuser being raced, after
previous versions suffered from overheating problems, a new development was the addition of
bargeboards to the space under the nose. Although bargeboards were largely outlawed under the
revised 2009 aero rules, there remains space under the raised chassis between the front wheels for a
high mounted pair to be fitted. Mercedes are one of the few teams not to exploit this area up until now.
There new vanes are mounted on "r" shaped struts under the nose, they are probably too high to affect
underfloor airflow, but will probably aid airflow through the sidepods undercut to provide higher
pressure over the diffuser.

17.7 Williams
For the FW32 there was a revised front wing and cascade arrangement
A strong end to the season saw Williams bring yet more updates to the FW32, in Singapore this included
a new floor for Barrichello (Hulkenberg gets his in Suzuka) and a new front wing arrangement. Retaining
the normal main wing and endplate, its again the cascade thats been revised as well as the inboard
section of wing. The cascade largely follows the shape of the previous version, but is now supported by
the turning vane mounted to the wings footplate, then the inboard wing section has the Renault
feathered shape. These triangular shaped wings create downforce, but this load is decreased towards
the thinner outer sections, which produces less disruption to the airflow around the wheel, compared
wing tip vortex produced by a constant wing section.
Williams arrived in Singapore with a completely new front-wing assembly, which is quite similar to
Renault's solution. Compared to the older
version (top drawing), the new front wing
(bottom drawing) features several
differences. There is a more pronounced
upward sweep of the outer lower wing, just
inboard of the endplate. While the former
small vertical fence at the outer edge of the
endplate has gone (1, upper), the upper
flap section now features an extension with
a small endplate outside the main endplate
(1, lower). It is all designed to help the tyre
act like a diffuser, sucking air from the front
wing to improve its efficiency. There are
also two new flaps in the central section (2)
and the main plane twists upwards (3).

17.8 Toro Rosso

Once again they tried their F-duct in practice, but chose not to run it in the race. The drivers control duct
could be seen within the left hand side of the cockpit, the duct exiting in a circular hole near the steering
wheel. Then the duct then routes down under the seat to pass back through the monocoque to the fluid
switch behind the roll hoop, which controls the flow the rear wing slot.

JAPAN TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010
18. JAPAN TECHNICAL REVIEW

18.1 Generalities
For the Formula One teams, the Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka presents one of the toughest challenges
of all for their cars. As one of the most technical tracks on the calendar, the figure eight Suzuka circuit is
a classic. With several long fast turns, a slow chicane and a reasonable straight, the track has it all,
however, specifically its the long turns that make Suzuka such a challenge for driver and car alike.
As with several races at this track, the weekend was interrupted by extreme weather, rain over the
opening days cut short dry running and with the race expected to be hot and dry, this lost set up time
was critical.

18.2 Red Bull
Red bull had a new delta shaped beam wing and we can also see the slot for the F-duct (yellow)
In Japan the two Red Bull drivers ran two different front wings, two different diffusers and the same new
rear wing the team introduced at the last
round in Singapore. This featured an F-
duct directed on to the main plane (red
arrow), in a similar way to the one
featured on the Renault. A new feature
was the beam wing, with a delta shape in
the middle.

A further development of recent endplates sees yet more slots made into its side
Continuing to press with their aero programme, Red Bull brought revised front and rear wings to Japan.
Their rear wing was a development of the one seen in Singapore, with both the F-duct blowing into the
main plane and with the extra blown slot. From the rear the profusion of slots in the back of the RB6
wing is clear to see. The team have a 15cm slot on the flap, then the normal slot in between the two
wing elements.
Then the F-duct curved slots (yellow) and the blown slot below it. In theory the F1 regulations allow for
just one slot between the elements, but interpretation of the wording of the rules means that an
unlimited amount of openings in the one side of the wing is possible as long as the slots on pass through
the middle 15cm of the wing.
With the upper rear wing remaining the same, it was the beam wing below that was altered. Similar to
the Spa beam wing this gained a pronounced "V" shape the centre portion of the wing.
At the front wing development progressed with a new endplate, which gains several new slots along its
side. These accelerate and divert air around the front wheel. Finally the team made the switch from low
slung brake calipers to more normal vertical position on the uprights.
Its been reported that the change in position was to improve brake cooling, which Red Bull have
suffered with at several races this year. Its thought the old positioning was also beneficial for lower
centre of gravity, but the caliper position also affects the loads being passed into the upright and

wishbone. With the change in Japan Red Bull may well have had new wishbones and a possible geometry
change, as well as the new uprights and brake ducts.
After several reliability issues, Red Bull's chief

technical officer Adrian Newey has changed the
positioning of the RB6's front brake calipers.
Instead of the horizontal position, which lowered
the suspension's centre of gravity, he's moved
the front calipers back to the more standard
vertical position. The previous positioning had
led to occasional mechanical failure due to
greater movement of the brake pistons, pads and
discs. This was a change planned for 2011, but
the team took the decision to run with it for
qualifying and the race in Japan.

18.3 Ferrari
The team announced it had run new aero parts on Friday. Hidden away beneath the car one small
change was a revised splitter. This gains a flat ridge running along its length to help meet the offset
deflection test introduced at short notice before Singapore. This isnt likely to be a performance part, as
Ferrari announced they are no longer developing the F10.
In Japan Ferrari are using a slightly modified version of the diffuser they introduced at August's Belgian
Grand Prix. A small omega-shaped wing (black arrow) has been added on top of the deformable
structure to boost downforce slightly. The front and rear wings being used at Suzuka are virtually the
same as those run by Ferrari at the last round in Singapore, but with some small changes to the front
wing's second flap.

18.4 McLaren
McLaren followed several other teams with a F-duct blowing the main plane of the wing
Again running their complex split front wing, it was the f-duct rear wing that was changed during Friday
practice. Both drivers tried this new development, which reroutes the f-duct into the main plane of the
rear wing, rather than the flap. McLaren have blown the slot in the flap since the f-ducts introduction.
However Saubers f-duct which soon followed ducted flow into the main plane, Renault and subsequently
Red Bull have followed this route. Its believed that using a slot in the main plane to stall the wing, is
more effective as the flow breaks up sooner, reducing drag even further than by stalling the flap.
As both versions of the wing were run, the new wing was noticeable as the shark fin stopped short of the
wings flap, allowing the full sponsors logo to be visible. After Hamiltons FP1 crash his wing was
wrecked and new parts were hand couriered to the track from their technical centre in England.
However the team felt the old wing was better and the drivers did not complete any further running with
the new wing.

The new aero package introduced by McLaren in Japan included a revised version of the Singapore front
wing, new longer exhausts, a new
engine cover and a new rear wing.
The team also changed the way their
F-duct worked, as the new version
blows on to the main plane (blue
arrow, main picture) rather than the
flap (blue arrow, inset). The team
only had two sets of this new rear
wing, so when Lewis Hamilton
crashed during Friday practice and
damaged it there was no spare and
he reverted to the standard rear
wing in the afternoon. On Saturday,
after a plane and helicopter ride, a
new rear wing arrived at Suzuka, but
after not completing any running in
the rain-hit third practice the team
opted to use the standard version (inset) in qualifying and the race. The new wing also had angled gills
like the Red Bull, rather than horizontal gills.

Analysis : New F-duct for Suzuka

(October 8, 2010)
In preparation for the final races, McLaren have developed another iteration of their F-duct rear wing.
The new version places the stalling slot onto the rear face of the main plane of the rear wing, where the
previous versions had all placed the slot on the rear face of the flap. This is a subtle change and effects
the way the wing stalls to create improve aero efficiency (i.e. more straight-line speed, or more
downforce for a given top speed).

F-ducts work as they reduce the drag created by the rear at speed, this drag limits the top speed the car
can achieve for a downforce level. The more downforce the wing makes, the more drag is created and
hence the lower the top speed. Although a larger wing creates more frontal area and hence presents
more of an obstruction to the airflow, it is in fact the drag induced the unseen air spilling off the wing
thats creates most of the rear wings drag. In fact an F1 wing despite looking so streamlined creates
more drag than a solid block of the same dimensions. This is because an F1 wing is so highly loaded as it
strives to create huge amounts of downforce from such a small surface area, that the air coming off the
wing creates an invisible extension to the wings frontal area. Created by both the airflow rising all but
vertically off the centre part of the rear wing and then the even more draggy vortices spiralling off the
wing tips. These vortices are often seen in wet conditions and used to be seen as a sign of an efficient
wing, but are in fact hugely detrimental to the downforce\drag coefficient of a rear wing. This is why we
see such efforts to reduce wing angles near the endplates and team make the slits in the endplates, as
these are all aimed at reducing these vortices.

Drag is created by the wings upwash and the vortices spilling from the wing tips
An ideal situation would be a wing with steep angles of attack for downforce in the corners, where drag
is of little consequence. Then a nice flat wing for the straights, where less drag improves top speed and
downforce is not required to give the car grip. Without being legally able to move the wing itself(albeit
this will allowed in 2011) there has no mechanism to create this effect in F1.

When the wing is stalled the airflow breaks up, preventing the drag inducing upwash and vortices
Teams have known for a long time that stalling the rear wing drastically reduces downforce and as a
result reduces drag. This is because the large flow structures coming off the wing break up and shed the
drag inducing effect they have. Many teams have tried to exploit the rules by flexing their rear wings to
create just such an effect, but the FIA has outlawed this via a number of deflection tests and latterly the
slot gap separator.
McLaren have now found that they can stall the rear wing, if they blow airflow out of a slot at right
angles to the underside of the rear wing. But this in itself cannot be exploited unless there is a means to
switch the airflow on and off. With the driver controlled F-duct, controlling the flow either to the stalling
slot or to a neutral outlet, McLaren can achieve the ideal situation of a downforce wing setting for
corners and low drag for the straights.

The driver controlled Fluid switch directs flow to the wing or the neutral outlet
By the driver controlling a duct that affects the flow through a fluid switch, which is a V shaped duct
behind the roll hoop, flow can either pass to the slot or a secondary duct exiting in the low pressure
region well away from the upper rear wing.

When disengaged the F-Duct sends flow through the lower branch, the upwash and vortices
continue to create dragWhen the duct is disengaged airflow passes out of the duct which exits
just above the beam wing. In this mode the rear wing has the flow attached and creates
downforce and with it drag.Blowing the flap stalls the wing to reduce drag
When the F-Duct is disengaged air passes from the roll hoop inlet into the Fluid switch. From there the
air flows both into the low level nuetral outlet and partly into the cockpit. When the driver covers this
cockpit control duct, the change in back pressure makes fluid switch alter the direction of the roll hoop
flow, to pass into the duct towards the rear wing.

When the cockpit duct is covered air instead passes to the rear wing slot
When the driver engages the F-duct the airflow alters inside the fluid switch to send the air out of the
stalling slot. This breaks up the vortices shed from the rear wing and reduces downforce and drag.
McLaren initially had this full width slot towards the trailing edge of the flap, the airflow stalls quite late
as it passes under the wing and the most likely effect of this is that airflow can reattach quickly when the
duct is disengaged. Its also possible that a downside to this, as the wing stalls quite near the trailing edge
there may still be some drag induced by the general upwash from under the wing.

Blowing the main plane stalls the wing earlier and may even further reduce drag
When Sauber copied the F-duct at the

2010 Australian GP, they had their F-duct
stall the wing via a stalling slot in the main
plane of the rear wing. While Ferrari and
Red Bull followed McLaren with a flap
stalling F-duct, Force India, Renault and
latterly Toro Rosso have gone the way of a
main plane stalling solution. By stalling the
wing much further upstream, its possible
that the disruption to the airflow further
reduces the upwash, in turn reducing drag
even further. On the downside the wing
may take longer to see the flow fully
reattach when the duct is disengaged.
McLaren appear to have seen a benefit in the main plane blown effect. Although the solution has
required new ducting and a new rear wing, it will only see at most three races before F-ducts are banned
for 2011. Such is the cost of fighting for the championship this year.

18.5 Renault
Yet another endplate for Renault, now with a slot in the rear of the footplate (arrowed)
The team brought the revised front wing endplate, as described in the Singapore Tech Desk. Although
the endplate wasnt raced in Marina bay, it was raced in Japan. A closer look at the bodywork shows the
endplate is more complex than simply a revised vane mounted to the foot plate, as the foot plate also
features a new slot.
Renault already run a complex set up in this area, with the footplate sloping downwards, and kept legal
by the rounded profile attached above it. Now this general downwards flow is augmented by the new
slot, high pressure above the endplate passes through the slot to direct airflow around the front
tyre. Renault have about the most complex endplate arrangement of any team, it will be interesting if
they can produce any more revisions to this part before the seasons finished.

18.6 Williams
Williams innovative with a beam wing with a full width blown slot at its rear
Although the team main technical updates for Suzuka were new brake ducts, the teams Singapore
upgrades were more visible, no longer hidden in the shadows around Singapore. At the last race the car
sported a new diffuser and wings. While the front wing was covered in Singapores Tech Desk, the new
rear wing hid some innovation. Specifically its the beam wing that been updated, which now gains a
slot.
Both in the FW32s initial design and with subsequent gearbox upgrades, Williams have been making
efforts to reduce the bodywork height ahead of the beam wing in order to make it more effective at
creating downforce. Perhaps with a view to 2011, when the beam wing will be more influential in
creating downforce, as the double diffuser being banned. Although many beam wings have the simple
15cm slot as used in rear wig flaps, Williams have gone further and expanded the narrow slot inside the
wings to create a near full width exit for the slot in the rear face of the wing.
Having a slot allows the team to create a steeper wing thats both improves downforce and interacts
better with the diffuser and rear wing. Feeding this slot is a large opening in the middle upper face of
the wing; its possible to see the hollow section of the wing to the sides of this large inlet.

Williams other development was their first use of extended front brake ducts; these exploit the loophole
in the bodywork rules that allow a vane to reach towards the front perimeter of the tyre. This smoothes
flow around the inside face of the wheel for reduced drag and better flow to the rear of the car.
As a final update on their FW32, Williams have

introduced new brake ducts for both the front
and rear brakes. The new ducts feature a shield
to prevent airflow into the duct to be disturbed
by the rotating front wheel. This design feature
is far from new and teams like Renault or
McLaren have been running it since the
beginning of the season. It is however likely that
Williams have now changed the front brake
ducts to better work with the new front wing
they introduced in Singapore. While the
endplate on that wing has become simpler, the
stacked element hangs over the endplate for
additional downforce. On the inside, an extra small stabiliser element was added as well, while the black
flaps closest to the front wing supports are now similar to Renault's solution.

18.7 Sauber
A new diffuser for Sauber was both longer and had revised splitters and edges
Sauber have announced many updates over the past few races, but few have been visibly different to the
preceding parts. One area that has been changed is the diffuser, although at first it too looks very much
like the outgoing design. In this update the diffusers upper deck has been enlarged and segmented, plus
the outer edges of the diffusers exit have been revised.
By making the upper diffuser longer more downforce can be created, but there needs to be space
created around the gearbox and engine to accommodate the new shape. From the side it appears that
the diffuser is some 5-10cm longer, and then its exit can be seen to have both horizontal and vertical
splitters to direct the flow out of the exit. Lastly the small normally flat area of bodywork next to the
rear tyres has been raised to create a mini diffuser effect.

18.8 Force India
Diverging from its preseason design (yellow), the new Force India diffuser no longer has the
dipped centre section (below)
Another team to introduce a new diffuser was Force India, although changed in detail throughout the
season; their diffuser has a distinctive shaped outlet since its launch. In the middle of the diffuser the
split between upper and lower decks drops down to allow access to the starter shaft. Now this feature
has been dropped for a more conventional curved shape and an aperture made into the floor to allow
access to the starter. This is probably a slightly more effect shape for the floor as the entire slopes
upwards to create downforce.

18.9 Virgin
Virgin has reported new wings and a floor in the past few races. However close examination suggests
the parts are little changed, most likely small geometry changes rather than a major shift in philosophy.


F1 Season 2010 - Aerodynamic and Mechanical Updates - Version 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

F1 Season 2010 - Aerodynamic and Mechanical Updates - Version 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AERODYNAMIC & MECHANICAL UPDATES 2010

INTRODUCTION Brawn BGP001

17th October 2010

THE F1-FORECAST.COM AERODYNAMIC & MECHANICAL

F1 Season 2010 | Dominique Madier

TABLE OF CONTENTS F1 Season 2010

3. BAHRAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW 109

4. AUSTRALIA TECHNICAL REVIEW 131

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS F1 Season 2010

4.7 RENAULT 139

5. MALAYSIA TECHNICAL REVIEW 147

6. CHINA TECHNICAL REVIEW 159

7. SPAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW 173

8. MONACO TECHNICAL REVIEW 192

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS F1 Season 2010

8.4 FERRARI 200

9. TURKEY TECHNICAL REVIEW 209

10. CANADA TECHNICAL REVIEW 224

11. EUROPE TECHNICAL REVIEW 234

12. GREAT-BRITAIN TECHNICAL REVIEW 253

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS F1 Season 2010

12.2 FERRARI 261

13. GERMANY TECHNICAL REVIEW 272

14. HUNGARY TECHNICAL REVIEW 307

15. BELGIUM TECHNICAL REVIEW 322

16. ITALY TECHNICAL REVIEW 333

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS F1 Season 2010

16.1.2 NEW REGULATION - PLANK LENGTH 334

17. SINGAPORE TECHNICAL REVIEW 348

18. JAPAN TECHNICAL REVIEW 359

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 6

LIST OF UPDATES F1 Season 2010

Version Pages Date Updates

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 7

INTRODUCTION F1 Season 2010

This report will be updated within the season 2010.

F1-Forecast wishes you a good reading.

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 8

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 9

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 10

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010

2.2 2010 RULE CHANGES- ACCOMODATING LARGER FUEL TANKS

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 11

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010

2.3 F-DUCTS: HOW DO THEY WORK ?

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:

Why is the F-Duct beneficial?

Basic wing theory

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 12

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010

Flaps and slot gaps

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 13

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 14

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Version 5 Page 15

GENERALITIES F1 Season 2010