2006 Turkish GP Technical Review

With the championship at a critical stage and far-reaching rule changes - affecting engines and chassis - dominating the teams' preparations for next year, this is a hectic time of the year for the engineering departments across the paddock.

With just four rounds remaining in the 2006 championship, the Turkish Grand Prix set the scene for the upcoming races, particularly at Suzuka and Interlagos.

And, with the points' battle tight throughout the standings, many teams introduced new parts in Istanbul, despite the recent test ban.

Istanbul Park provides stern test for car and driver alike. Running anticlockwise, the Tilke-designed circuit has a classic layout, with a fast straight capped by slow sequences, some faster sequences with several changes of direction, as well as the infamous Turn 8. This punishes the right front tyre and the driver's neck, as both the main straight and the back straight lead into heaving braking areas.

In spite of the slower sequences, the track requires a lot less downforce than expected, which caught the teams out last year, but everyone was better prepared this year, and Turn 8 was less of a hazard for most drivers.

Mass dampers

On August 22, the FIA's Court of Appeal ruled that the governing body was correct in deeming mass dampers illegal, quashing an opposite decision by the race stewards at the German Grand Prix.

The matter of Mass Dampers has been managed with the FIA's usual inconsistent and reactive manner. Renault revealed their system had been run since Brazil last year, but it was not commonly known about until the Monaco weekend this year.

Teams have long used static ballast, mounted low down to tune the car's weight distribution both vertically and longitudinally. Renault took some 10kg of this ballast and mounted it on a dual spring system and fitted it as a system inside the detachable nose cone. More recently, a similar system was fitted above the clutch inside the gearbox.

Renault's stated aim of this system was to counteract the tyres' natural spring frequency. F1 cars are very stiffly sprung and damped in order to control the aerodynamics; this is to the detriment of mechanical grip. Tyres therefore account for a large amount of the car's suspension movement.

But this movement is not sufficiently damped by the tyre's rubber, and this can cause the front of the car to bounce in an uncontrolled manner, causing a loss of tyre grip due to inconsistent loads seen at the contact patch.

Renault carefully tuned their saucer-shaped mass and the spring system supporting it to create a passive control system to offset the tyre's frequency. This created the advantage that the tyres had a more consistent loading on them, allowing Renault to have more of the tyre's potential grip available around the lap - especially over bumps, kerbs and under braking.

It is also clear that this system had aerodynamic benefits, too, in that the counteracting of the tyre's bounce allows a more static ride height under the same transient conditions. This allows the front wing and diffuser to be more efficient around the lap.

This sort of control was previously seen with active suspension, and the passive mass damper system recreated it in a simple mechanical manner.

However, mass dampers go against the spirit of the regulations, even if no specific regulation covers them. They are neither part of the generally accepted definition of suspension nor of ballast, however at the same time they affect the handling and aerodynamics.

From a safety perspective, these systems, weighing over 10kg, are mounted in a vulnerable position on the car, which is prone to being knocked off in an accident and flying off.

The FIA has in the past released clarifications on where ballast can be counted on the cars, and the amount allowed within the nose cone is restricted.

As more and more teams (seven or eight in total) adopted the mass damper system, the FIA learned of plans to run heavier systems, multiple systems and systems that worked laterally as well as vertically to assist turn in.

The FIA therefore decided enough is enough, and the memo to the teams cited the aerodynamic benefit as the reason for their exclusion.

It was this decision, issued as a technical directive on July 17, that the court in Paris upheld last week, and the systems are not expected to reappear in their current guise.

However, the knowledge of these systems will no doubt be integrated into the suspension of future cars and in particular the size and function of the third damper.

In fact, it could be possible to run a heavy third damper to recreate the mass damper system within the allowable wording of the rules for the car's suspension.

Wheel fairings

More controversy erupted over Ferrari's revised wheel covers in Turkey. Having been run all year, the new fairings fitted to the rear wheels now use even smaller apertures, now reduced to just about the smallest possible diameter while still being able to fit the wheel gun to remove the large nut retaining the wheel.

The fairings are mounted on to the wheel at the rim, and with six spokes projecting from the aperture to inside the rim.

Curiously, the fairings had an FIA inspection sticker attached on race day, so clearly the FIA is keeping an eye on these devices, even though so far the governing body has approved their use under the brake duct rules that were revised for 2006.

Ferrari - and indeed Toyota and Toro Rosso, who also run such devices - contend that the covers are not structural and hence not part of the wheel, and thus do not infringe the rules that the wheel must be made of a homogeneous material.

Equally, the change in definition of bodywork around the wheels - agreed by the Technical Working Group and the FIA over the winter - excludes the devices from the movable aerodynamic regulation, used to ban mass dampers.

One comment raised by McLaren boss Ron Dennis this weekend was that the devices are changed along with the wheels and hence contravene Parc Ferme regulations that no bodywork may be changed once qualifying begins.

However, teams could argue the parts are replaced like-for-like and are no threat to the parc ferme rules, much in the same way that a nose cone is replaced during a pitstop.

However, if these fairings are protested or are adopted by other teams for the aerodynamically critical Italian Grand Prix, the FIA could still step in and outlaw the device.

Renault

Despite Fernando Alonso's non finish in Hungary, his engine wasn't changed, however teammate Fisichella's unit was replaced after its two races cycle for the latest spec. This leaves Alonso with a fresh engine for the punishing Monza race.

As the mass damper system has had to be removed, Renault are believed to have replaced the unit with an equally heavy piece of static ballast in the same location.

Performance upgrades to the car for the weekend included an extra pair of winglets (yellow) on the top of the chassis, placed behind the usual pair in order to improve the flow to the rear of the car.

Ferrari

Unlike Renault, Ferrari opted to change the engine on Schumacher's car a race early. As well as the revised wheel fairing, Ferrari ran the bargeboards seen in testing before the French GP.

These bargeboards have a saw toothed upper edge and extra turning vane (yellow) beneath a small flip-up at the rear of the board.

The stepped upper edge breaks up the large single vortex created along the top edge of the bargeboard into several small ones.

The small extra vane has been added since it was first tested and may be a response to the different flow off the board.

Midland

A major step forwards for Midland was the debut of all-new front and rear wings. The front wing in particular is a major departure for Midland: although still using three elements, the middle section (yellow) is now much deeper, enabling it to work in conjunction with the ground.

Speaking on the wings development, Midland's technical director James Key told autosport.com: "We were originally working on this as part of the M17 (the 2007 car), but since it also proved to work well with the M16 geometry, we decided go ahead and introduce it this year."

He further explained its shape: "The lower, more aggressive centre section embraces a design philosophy that can be seen on most of the other cars. It has, however, taken us a little while to get it working to our liking.

"It is a much more powerful wing that is also less sensitive and more stable - an assertion that has been backed up by driver feedback during back-to-back comparison with the old design."

Last year, racing as Jordan, the team struggled to find new front wing shapes that were enough of an improvement over the old designs to warrant the investment in manufacturing.

Budgets and developments allowed the new M16 to be rolled out with a new three-element wing with a flatter profile. Moreover, the improvements within the team this year have allowed this mid season upgrade. "We had no particular constraints or criteria to allow this development to go ahead. The results were good enough to justify the new wing," key added.

The front wings introduction were completed in isolation, as other aerodynamic parts have been tweaked, with Key remarking that "small modifications around the front end have also been possible after working with the new wing in the tunnel."

BMW_Sauber

Yet more aero development on the BMW Sauber was seen in the new shoulder wings.

Despite Turkey being a medium to low downforce track, the new wings used an aerofoil-shaped lower mounting and an extra element mounted to the endplate.

These are the most aggressive shoulder wings seen so far, and it is possible the vortex created at the upper wing tip (near the 'Dell' logo) would curl over the endplate and spiral under the chimney to feed the flow going over the diffuser and beam wing.

Super Aguri

When the SA06 rolled out in Germany, the team announced that they had another upgrade planned for Turkey to complete the car's design with a new front end.

This revision was duly completed for the third SA06 chassis and run on Friday by Franck Montagny. Then, after checking the data, the revised car was used by Takuma Sato for the balance of the weekend.

Although the team did not release any more technical information on the revision, the major change appears to be the shortening of the exposed front bulkhead forming the keel (yellow) on the Arrows-based chassis.

This change keeps the upper wishbone in its place but moves the lower wishbone's front mounting up several inches, placing it in line with the lower edge of the chassis and bargeboard mount.

This creates what is probably still somewhat compromised wishbone geometry, with diverging wishbones extending from the monocoque. However, it places the lower wishbone much higher up, which is preferable for aerodynamics.

Most of the other bodywork around the front of the car appears unchanged, other than the shortening of the fairing protruding under the nose cone that used to cover the twin keels.

One other development seen on the cars was the reintroduction of shoulder fins. These were added to the SA06 for its first two races but do appear similar to the ones used on the SA05 earlier this season.

Toyota

Having run their unique shape of front wing for some time, Toyota brought an all-new wing to Turkey.

Their old design had distinct changes in geometry, as the wing dipped in the middle and flicked up at the outer tips.

The new wing keeps the same basic shape, but the junction between the different sections is now much smoother and in keeping with most other teams' designs.

Williams

Williams ran new bargeboards, which were very similar to the previous versions, with a larger rear board and smaller forward boards made up of three turning vanes.

We want to hear from you!

Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.

Take our survey

- The Autosport.com Team

Read and post comments