Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] What does it all mean?

Source: 
grandprix.com
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns13453.html
The FIA has presented members of the Formula 1 Technical Working Group
with three packages of technical measures for consideration, following
the failure of the teams to come up with a suitable agreement on how to
cut back speeds in F1. The engineers will now have to choose between the
three packages although the FIA has deliberately structured the proposals
to ensure that none of them are really acceptable and has created a neat
escape route by saying that it will accept a combination of elements from
the different packages. In effect this means that the FIA is abandoning
any real hope of a change in the engine formula and will have to make do
with aerodynamic changes.
This was necessary because the plan to move to 2.4-litre V8s in 2006
risked the FIA being taken to arbitration by several teams, a legal
process which the federation would almost certainly have lost because of
a clause written into the Concorde Agreement which stipulates that until
the end of the agreement in 2007 F1 is for 3-litre V10 engines.
In order to avoid that problem the FIA says that it will accept a
mix-and-match set of proposals from the three packages, if the Technical
Working Group and the Formula 1 Commission support the package.
The three packages suggested by the FIA include one which would see
aerodynamic reductions of the front wings and engines which would have
fixed bore, cylinder spacing, engine length, crankshaft centre line
height and engine mounting points. This will not get voted through
because it creates what would be standard engines which the engine
manufacturers will not accept.
The second package includes radical rear wing changes but no mention of
engines. It is too late for these changes to be designed into 2005 F1
cars, unless the teams start again from scratch.
The third package includes the banning of all turning vanes and barge
boards and engine rules which will make 2.4-litre V8 engines the only
possible engines. The interesting part of this package is that there will
be sporting regulations which force engine manufacturers to provide
engines free of charge and on a fully competitive basis to a number of
teams depending on how many teams are racing. This would be similar to
the rules which are currently supplied to the tyre companies. This is an
idea likely to be supported by the small teams (which will do more or
less anything for free engines) but will not be acceptable for the big
teams.
The three proposals are thus structured in such a way as to force the
engineers to either accept a massive reduction in rear wing (and the
equivalent reduction which would result at the front in order to balance
the cars) or to try to find some agreement on engines. By allowing a
mix-and-match set of rules to be established the FIA will get some of the
things it wants without having to be seen to back down on the question of
engines.
The FIA also says that it wants to introduce two new safety measures as
quickly as possible. These will no doubt cause a great deal of
controversy as they will, if adopted, create very different cars from the
existing F1 machinery. The first measure is to eliminate "materials
likely to leave sharp shards on the circuit in the event of an accident"
and this can only be seen as an attack on composite materials used in
wings and bodywork.
The FIA also wants to reduce the weight limit to eliminate ballast in
order to reduce the energy to be dissipated if control of a car is lost.
This would be combined, if necessary, with a change in relative wheel
widths front to rear.
The high minimum weight limit was designed to reduce costs by getting rid
of the need for expensive exotic lightweight materials. That rule clearly
backfired because designers soon realised that the rule gave them the
opportunity to create movable ballast in the car which helped them alter
the handling characteristics to match the different demands of qualifying
and the race. The new F1 rules for qualifying mean that there is no
longer a need for movable ballast and so the high weight limit has become
pointless. Demanding a lower minimum weight limit will however force
teams to build new cars and that could push several smaller teams out of
business as they have survived in recent years by using the same cars
over and over again.
Copyright 1988-2004, Inside F1, Inc.
--
Automatically gathered from the web by rssizer
Subscribe/unsubcribe at
http://radiobox.kenobi.it/mailman/listinfo/webnews
Contact 
ale...@kenobi.it
 for any problem

 manufacturers will not accept.
In effetti la stipula di punti di fissaggio standard per il motore
vorrebbe dire che cambiare il fabbricante del motore su una certa
vettura non sia più impossibile, anche se non credo che sarebbe comunque
"facile". In ogni caso mi sembra che la FIA cerchi di far diventare
(ritornare) il motore un elemento commerciale, ma vista la situazione
coi Grandi Costruttori sia un'impresa impossibile.
-- 
Alessio F. Bragadini		
ale...@sevenseas.org
"E allora? Turarsi il naso. Coprirsi. Cambiare canale. Cambiare
passione. Cambiare mestiere. Resistere. Sognare, forse."