Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!

Overtaking group

Apparently the overtaking group is proposing a number of rule changes for the 2009 F1 season. Here's what they came up with:
On Wednesday the FIA World Council confirmed new aero rules for 2009, which have been proposed by the so-called overtaking group. Rory Byrne, Pat Symonds and Paddy Lowe had worked out a car configuration, which should make it easier to follow another car and to overtake.

The technical directors agreed to proposals which are as follows:

- Front wing width increased to 180 instead of 140 cm.

- Front wing height decreased to 7.5 instead of 15 cm.

- The middle section over a width of 40 cm has to be a standard part.

- The driver may adjust the front wing flaps from the cockpit twice a lap by an angle of a maximum 6 degrees.

- Rear wing width 75 instead of 100 cm

- Rear wing height 95 instead of 80 cm.

The diffusor then starts from the centre of the rear axle rather than from the front end of the rear wheels. It may raise to 17.5 instead of 12.5 cm. The bodywork has to be clean. That means no barge boards, no winglets, no chimneys, no flipups.

Windtunnel research has shown that with the new rules the overall downforce loss will be 50 percent compared to the 2006 aero. If you follow another car within half a car length you will only lose 25 instead of 46 percent of the downforce and the balance shift will be 1 percent to the front rather than 4 percent to the back as it is now
Sounds pretty good to me. Too bad it will make the cars slower though. I wonder what this will make the cars look like.

[Edited on 28-10-07 by Stan]


  • Driver-adjustable flaps? Very James Bond.
  • I don't agree with the driver adjustable front wing flaps. It just makes it too open for manipulation or interpretation. F1 with wing control, has always been about fixed components, to alleviate major mechanical failure.
  • I agree with you Piston. I can see a situation where they will be banned after the first major accident especially if someone were to get hurt.
  • Make the whole car adjustable, so we can we a whole bunch of Transformers on the track.
  • Just as long as we keep the tradition of the red car being illegal at the first few races (everyone seems to have forgotten this. Convenience, I assume.)
  • Driver adjustable flaps? What have they been smoking?
  • Saw this on the DailyF1News website.....

    Tuesday 30 Oktober at 16:34 :

    " In the now very hot debate about whether or not McLaren is doing the right thing by appealing the stewards' "cool fuel" decision, as well as the debates about the punishment certain drivers failed to receive over the course of the season for numerous "small" transgressions, most punters in favour of McLaren are now returning to race one of 2007 - Melbourne.

    "But look", they say "Ferrari raced with an illegal, felixible floor in Melbourne, and they got away with it!". They will further state that McLaren made their protest in a very sporting way, by seeking "clarification", rather than lodging a protest.

    And yes, all of that is true, not to mention the fact that McLaren brought this issue to the attention of the FIA two days prior to the race - on March 16.

    It's a pointless argument though.

    Why? Because the FIA had, prior to all of this, declared Ferrari's floor legal. In other words, Ferrari had submitted the design to the FIA for scrutiny, as it had to, and been told it's OK to race with that floor.

    Once the "clarification" was sought, the rules weren't changed either. All the FIA changed was their method of testing. This meant Ferrari's floor, which had been declared legal by the FIA, was suddenly illegal and they had to change a fundamental part of the design of their car before the next race. The effect was there for all to see at Malyasia, the next race, where McLaren took a 1-2.

    So, is it fair to expect that a "clarification" sought two days before the start of a race, on the day of qualifying, can be properly investigated on race weekend? That it should result in an instruction to change the car before qualifying, or the race, starts? An instruction to change a part of a car that is, as far as the team has been told by the powers that be, legal? Is it fair for the team who sought the clarification to say that they will not appeal the result solely "in the interests of the sport"? Is it even plausible to call the result of the race into question at all, following a post-race change in how a regulation is measured? And following all of those questions, is it in the realms of sanity to compare the two situations? Then and now? To say that McLaren were disadvantaged by this episode?

    The question of where McLaren obtained the information on which they based the action, of course, also remains."

    Edu de Jager

    "Illegal"....and at the "first few races"......

    sounds more like a heavy dose of Limey wishful thinking ????? hahahaha



    [Edited on 30-10-07 by Murph]
Sign In or Register to comment.