2008 Spanish GP Technical Review

After three flyaway races, the teams returned to their European bases and completed a weeklong test ahead of the Spanish GP. As the fourth race in the season, this was the first chance for the teams to make major developments to their cars, and as result nearly every team had new developments for the race weekend.

Equally, the circuit marks to the first chance to really assess the relative pace - Barcelona is a favoured test track and every team knows how to get the best from its car there. Thus the race was far tighter than we've seen all year; along with the upgrades, many teams were closer to the fight than previously.

The Circuit de Catalunya has a mix of mainly fast corners, and despite the last turn being slowed for this year's race the track makes more demands of high speed aerodynamic efficiently than any other.

This punishes the left front tyre, and the hard acceleration out of the slower sections also tests traction and rear tyre wear. The long straight ensures a powerful engine is a requisite.

But despite the long straight the cars run high downforce for this track, which was one factor behind the many new aerodynamics updates for this race. The opening races were predominantly medium downforce tracks.

Team by Team

Ferrari

Having run its new nose in testing, Ferrari at last brought it to a race weekend. Featuring a vent between the front wing and the top of the nose, the set-up required a revised monocoque and new nose cone.

The nose hole is aimed at improving the way the front wing works within the tight confines of the raised section of the front of the car. Normally, high pressure builds up on the top surface of the wing (and lower pressure beneath).

This high pressure region then has nowhere to go and affects the low pressure wake from under the wing. Given that it is this low pressure which creates the downforce, this is undesirable.

What Ferrari has done is effectively remove the obstruction of the nose from above the front wing. Although outwardly the nosecone appears conventional, the passage created from above the front wing and out towards the rear of the nose cone makes the wing act as if there is nothing above it.

Indeed, if there wasn't the safety requirement of the long nose cone the front section could be discarded completely, leaving only the stubby wedge-shaped front section. This would mean that the low pressure region under the front wing would be able to expand and create more downforce.

The flow under the floor is less compromised by the interruption of the high pressure upper flow. The venting of the high pressure region above the tub may also provide some downforce, as the monocoque tends to slope downwards from the front bulkhead creating lift - adding this flow may offset this.

The nose hole works only with certain front wing set-ups. It is aimed at the medium to high end of the downforce spectrum, hence its appearance at Barcelona.

At super-high speed tracks the nose hole might not be beneficial, as there is little front flap angle to send flow up the channel. Equally, at Monaco the unusually steep front wing set-up might not align with the position of the channel.

Even though the nose hole has been heavily discussed, Ferrari is adamant it that it is not a huge aerodynamic gain. As the hole only affects one small aspect of the car's aero performance, suggestions of just a tenth of second gain would not be wide of the mark.

Aside from the nose, Ferrari also had some other aero developments, including diffuser revisions. Externally these were not evident, suggesting that just some small geometry changes were made rather than big concept changes.

BMW Sauber

More used to being the team bringing the large visual changes, BMW Sauber did have some updates to the car, but they were quite subtle.

The main changes were around the rear wing area. The engine cover fin was enlarged, although not to the same extent as the Renault/Red Bull solutions. Just small hump was added to provide some yaw resistance on corner entry.

Unusually, the fin had a fishtail to the trailing edge - the upper and lower tips were approximately in line with the rear wing, suggesting that when the car is yawed (at an angle to the airflow), small vortices are shed to maintain rear wing flow that might otherwise be masked by the larger fin.

Additionally, the rear wing was once more mounted via a pair of struts and the load no longer borne by the endplates. BMW dropped this set-up last year; its return allows the team to create more of a shape with the endplates and lower beam, which no longer have to be as heavy to accept the loads and can be shaped more freely for aerodynamic benefit.

In the race, Nick Heidfeld was running a long first stint and Heikki Kovalainen's accident compromised his strategy. At first it may seem that the team was playing a risk with his strategy. But most teams do have a reserve tank of fuel, enough for a extra lap, and as the safety car period was so long Heidfeld no doubt used this up and was forced to pit when the pitlane was closed, ruining his race.

Renault

Renault arrived at Barcelona with a heavily updated car proven in the prior week's testing. Having started the season with disappointing pace, the upgrade appears to have made the step Renault needed to reach the front of the midfield.

With both aerodynamics and suspension changed, the team has been coy and not spoken at any length about the nature or benefit of the updates.

On the aerodynamic side, the obvious change has been the Red Bull-like 'big fin'; this keeps the back of the car laterally stable on corner entry by providing a large surface to resist the tail sliding.

This change highlights Renault's recent move towards a more forward-biased weight distribution. In doing this the lesser load on the rear wheels leads to less stability - the fin recovers some of this stability. The team also raced its front wheel covers and the end-plated bridge wing seen in pre-season testing.

If the fin was the big visual change, a more radical upgrade was around the front brake ducts. Since the brake duct regulations were freed up two years ago, teams have been adding more bodywork in the allowable area, without having to justify the parts as being for 'brake cooling'.

What Renault has done is to cleverly interpret the regulations and place a turning vane where the rules would other wise disallow bodywork. The vane is mounted to a horizontal support and picks up the front wing flow, routing it around the inside of the wheels.

The vane is quite large and it must have some effect when the wheels are steered. It may be more useful when the wheels aren't steered, although it's possible the vane could be configured provide some side thrust when the car corners.

The large vane is legal as it sits within two sets of regulations. There is an exclusion area between the wheels and the bodywork to prevent it being more than 25cm away from the chassis. This rule prevents the outboard turning vanes from the late nineties - potentially the Renault vane may have fallen foul of this rule, but as it actually fits within the brake duct regulation sit is exempt.

The brake duct rules allow bodywork up to 120mm inside the wheel face that can reach as far forward the front of the tyres and as far back as the wheel, but not higher or lower than the top or bottom of the wheel.

Renault's vane fits exactly into this box - it tapers up towards its tail and is slightly rounded to match the tyre profile at the front. This is a bold interpretation of the rules, and is likely to be copied by many teams.

In the suspension area, Renault is believed to have run J-dampers for the first time. These dampers, also known as inertia dampers, aim to replicate the action of mass dampers, i.e. to remove the 'bounce' in the tyres from upsetting the suspension.

Many teams are believed to be running the dampers and in fact their design is not new, as Sam Michael told Autosport.com: "We believe most teams have been using them for a couple of seasons now".

Unlike mass dampers which were mounted inside the nose cone (or inside the gearbox), inertia dampers are fitted amongst the normal springs and dampers in the suspension, most likely replacing the third dampers, front and rear.

As they are a recognisable part of the suspension, they may well be declared legal - unlike mass dampers. According to Michael, "These are different to mass dampers and fully legal because they are part of the suspension system".

The actual inertia damper consists of a conventional-looking damper body with a cylindrical mass inside that is spun as the suspension moves. This takes the energy given out by the spring in the tyres by the suspension maintaining an ideal contact patch load.

Williams

Having shown pace, albeit with some inconsistency so far this year, Williams tested and raced with a host of aerodynamic updates to the car, based around new diffuser and wings.

At the front, the new front wing follows Renault and BMW's square-jawed design, which also follows a three-element approach. The previous front wing was a more conventional swept curved shape using an extra slot gap in the deeper central section.

Michael told Autosport about the changes:

"The new wing is a three-element, whereas the old wing was a three-element centre and two-element outboard. This means the centre of the wing is effectively the same concept, but the outboard tip is different. This change is better for cornering sensitivity and it works in conjunction with the front wing endplate".

The flatter middle section could be prone to being more pitch sensitive, but Michael suggests this isn't the case.

"The change in the front wing centre is not enough to make it more pitch sensitive," he said. "As the front wing elements are so far from the ground compared to 10 years ago, this is not really an issue these days".

The front wing change was allied to new endplates and front ducts. The latter now features a large fin below the inlet scoop. Beneath the car the floor and diffuser have been revised, the main visual change being the addition of extra fences inside the outer diffuser channels, plus the rear brake-mounted vanes have been altered to be side-mounted.

Above this the new rear wing follows Ferrari tapering design, with the flap partly overlapping the main plane, creating a tapered slot gap.

Red Bull

Red Bull produced a more modest upgrade compared to many teams. Externally the changes were seen to be front wing, new wheel fairings and revised bargeboards.

The team was late to test the front wheel fairings - these parts are reputed to be worth quite a few point in aerodynamic efficiency, which translate to a drop in lap times. However, they need to be packaged into the upright and hub assembly as well as made to work with the brake set up.

Not surprisingly, the Red Bull set-up is more open than other teams more evolved designs. Geoff Willis told Autosport.com about the changes.

"We had good feedback from the drivers when these were tested last week in Barcelona," he said. "It is likely that we will find further developments in this area as we continue to develop the car, but this is our current preferred version. The hubs have required some small modifications to enable us to run the covers.

"All aerodynamic developments affect the performance of other components on the car and this is particularly so for those elements around the front wheels. This means that for much of the time components cannot be developed in isolation from each other, which can increase the challenge in the wind tunnel."

To this end the team's bargeboards were also revised, cribbing the BMW Sauber solution of joining the pod wing to the bargeboard. This, along with the front wheel fairing, sends the flow around the car and to the diffuser and rear wing with more efficiency.

Toyota

Along with Red bull Toyota joined in on the plagiarism around the pitlane, copying BMW.Sauber's conjoined pod wing and bargeboard.

However Toyota also comprehensively redesigned the shoulders of its sidepods along with the change. At the car's launch the Toyota had mirrors mounted to the pod wings. These were soon relocated in a trade-off between aerodynamics and the driver's view of the rear.

A new compromise has been made with mirrors mounted mid-way between the pod wing and the cockpit. The pod wing itself is much larger and almost joins the sidepod's flip-up.

Around the front suspension the team's turning vanes gained a new horizontal flap, with the turned-down end forming an endplate.

Honda

In the second upgrade to the car since its launch, Honda has made more steps forward. Although many changes were far less visible than the pre-Melbourne update, two developments did stand out.

Firstly, the so-called 'Dumbo ears' made a reappearance on the nose. These were tested last year, but never raced. Ina similar way to BMW.Sauber's nose fins, they aim to control the airflow rising up over the front wing and direct it down. This costs some front downforce, but makes the rear wing and diffuser more efficient, which reduces drag for a given downforce level.

Also at the front the team made a late adoption of front wheel fairings. Cleverly detailed with globe print stickers, the fairings follow BMW's lead with a small overlap on the front lower edge, while on the inside of the front brake ducts a new fin was added to manage flow coming off the front wing endplate.

McLaren

McLaren had updates on the car but these were detailed geometry changes, and even the parts tested in raw carbon fibre (but disguised with silver tape) were almost indistinguishable from the older parts.

Kovalainen's race was ended early when his car speared off the track at Campsa with a deflated front tyre. Replays showed that the wheel failed as the car approached the corner. Given that is was the outside left front tyre that failed, the car was uncontrollable as it approached the high-speed right-hand turn at 250kp/h.

The wheel failure did not appear to be the fault of the wheel construction or a wheel nut issue, as experienced by Lewis Hamilton in a near-identical crash at last year's European GP. More likely is that debris became caught between the brake duct and the inside of the wheel.

Earlier in the race, Anthony Davidson sufferd radiator damaged caused by Nelson Piquet's spin bringing gravel onto the track. It could be this gravel or errant carbon fibre debris that cut through the wheel.

Once it had left the track, Kovalainen's car hit the tyre barrier at around 140kp/h. The deep rows of tyres and conveyor belting covering them slowed the car's deceleration, reducing the impact to 26g and taking around 100ms.

Although still extreme figures, the deceleration was far less than Kubica's Canadian crash, for example. As the car's nose lodged in between the stacks of tyres, it became caught. Although clearly the car's roll hoop and Kovalainens head had some impact with the barrier, they were not as deeply lodged inside the barrier as it first appeared.

Once extricated the chassis appeared at first to have catastrophic damage, which did not tally with drivers' lack of injuries. The front 40-50cm of monocoque were missing, and the visible cockpit footwell padding demonstrated just how far back the damage had came.

This padding ends between the driver and his feet; the sight of the driver's heel rest hanging from the torn monocoque also shows the damage went far back behind his feet.

However this damage was not caused by the monocoque crumpling from the impact, but rather it split at this point with a lot of the structure ahead of it still intact. Thus, his feet were protected by the structure.

It appears that the monocoque split as the nose found its way through the stacks of tyres. The action of pulling the car out from the tyres with the nose wedged tightly within the barrier tore the car in two, making the monocoque appear more damaged than it was.

Regardless, any crash can give the teams and FIA lessons on survivability, and potentially new tests on the front of the monocoque to resist off-axis impacts may need to be considered.

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