The 2006 Technical Preview (Part I)

2005 ended a long spell of Ferrari domination in Formula One, and it also heralded the end of several eras, with the departure of V10 engines, Minardi, Jordan and Sauber. So 2006 brings a new age in F1, going back to V8 engines now just 2.4 litres in size, added to different technical rules and new or renamed teams.

Even if the rules haven't demanded it, the cars are all quite different in detail to last year, but not from each other. Few aerodynamic rule changes this year has allowed the teams to play catch up on the more drastic aero changes from last year. Now the convergence in design is striking. The shorter v8 engines have required some layout differences between the teams with Michelin tyres over the Bridgestone runners, but this difference is barely detectable externally.

However, the visual similarities will not necessarily mean the teams will be closer on pace or have closer racing. Rather, the season will be influenced by the return of tyre changes, which tyre supplier has got it right most of the time, and how successful the engine suppliers have been in making the smaller capacity motors work.

The opening races will definitely not reveal who will have the advantage over the course of the full season. Development by the teams, engine and tyre suppliers will see teams' fortunes fluctuate throughout the year, and we may not have a clear idea of who will win the championship until the season's end.

V8 engines - power and drivability impacts

With engine power being one of the biggest factors in laptimes, it was logical that the FIA would enforce some form of engine restriction to slow speeds down. The resulting solution was to downsize the 3.0-litre V10s to 2.4l V8s; in the simplest terms, the rules have removed two cylinders from the old V10 engines. But in detail, in addition to the capacity reduction, the FIA has enforced a number of other technology restrictions on materials, dimensions and variable inlet trumpets.

Due to the huge amount of development to make the all-new V8 engines, costs will not be reduced for this year at least, but certainly the engines' power outputs will be. From a 2005 V10 producing around 930-960hp, this year's 20% capacity drop will see power outputs around 730-750hp. But soon the engine suppliers will have proven their new engine's reliability in race trim without managing rev limits. From there, the designers will start the unrelenting work of increasing horsepower and revs.

Despite the expected issues around the V8's vibrations making the engines more fragile and restricting peak revs, most engines are already running reliably over 19,000rpm, with Cosworth boasting a 20,000rpm peak in testing.

Of course, with the reduced capacity to make good peak power, the engines will not have the same levels of drivability as the V10s. The engines will lack torque and as a result the engines will be worked harder, spending more time near peak revs.

Out of faster turns the cars will accelerate slower, while out of low speed corners the engines will not overcome the tyres so readily as the V10, so the accelerations will be similar. This harder working of the engine will see cooling and fuel consumption lower than the V10s, but not by as much as the 20% drop in cubic capacity.

Qualifying and tyre change impacts

Two key areas the FIA have been experimenting with over the past few years is the qualifying format and more recently mid-race tyre changes.

It seems the FIA has tried to spice up the show by introducing more risk and strategy into the qualifying format, with the joint aims of making the one hour session more exciting for TV and mixing up the grid a little, as wet weather conditions often produce more exciting races.

Mid-race tyres stops make each stint of the race more of a sprint, but last year's trial with no tyre stops did not seem to make a big difference to the quality or pace of the racing (Bridgestone teams aside).

The new qualifying format will prove to be demanding for the teams, spectators and commentators alike (see separate article in this week's issue). The twist comes with fuel loads, as the teams qualifying out of the top ten will be allowed to refuel and fit new tyres for the race. Meanwhile, the top ten will only be allowed to top-up the fuel they used in the qualifying session.

There might be a question for the mid-field teams on whether or not they should risk qualifying in the top ten on race fuel. If they fail, they have lost grid positions. Equally, it is possible that teams expecting to be in the top ten who slip up could promote a car expecting to be in the bottom twelve on light fuel. In this situation, the car would have to start the race on very little fuel, and so the better qualifying position would almost be a handicap.

Design: piece by piece

Keels

After the late announced aerodynamic changes for 2005, the teams have now had the chance to fully re-evaluate their aerodynamic philosophies. Key in these philosophies has been making the flow from the front wing work more effectively. To do this, the keel arrangement has been revised on many cars.

After several years of teams trying out twin keel arrangements, the convention in 2005 was a single keel, but this design places the lower wishbone in a bad position near the trailing edge of the front wing.

Teams have tried to raise the lower wishbone to make it work better with the front wing. Following McLaren's lead, Toyota and now BMW, Williams and Honda have the lower wishbone mounted direct to the chassis and not through a keel.

These teams have adopted a slightly different approach to the packaging of the wishbone. BMW and Williams have both lowered the front bulkhead. This has several benefits, including a lower centre of gravity, less compromised suspension geometry, and also clean flat underside the underside of the nose.

Meanwhile, Honda mounted the lower wishbone under the monocoque. Each wishbone mounts nearer to the centre line of the car and not to the outer edge of the monocoque. This improves the geometry but does enforce a deeper cross section at the front of the monocoque, as it necessitates a fairing to enclosed the mountings.

Additionally, Honda chose to mount the steering rack mid way between the upper and lower wishbones, a design first used on the early BAR cars. This lowers the centre of gravity, and the resulting obstruction by the steering arm in the aerodynamics is insignificant.

Toyota have carried over the TF105B keel-less set-up, which also retains the remnants of the single keel. Technical director Mike Gascoyne said the keel had little aerodynamic effect but did make the packaging of the pedals and drivers' heel rests somewhat easier.

Midland followed a previous layout (from 2003) with a slight dog-leg in their lower wishbones, making the design almost a twin keel and not quite a zero keel. Again, the wishbone mounts to a metal insert in the chassis (partially obscured by the wishbone fairing).

Equally, Super Aguri inherited a twin keel design from the old Arrows chassis; this is a more radical twin keel, with the metal chassis inserts dropping vertically to pick up the wishbone very low on the car.

Renault modified the single keel design in 2005 with their "V" keel. This is a simple pair of pylons meeting in a "V" under the chassis to mount the lower wishbone on the car's centre line. This set-up was both lighter and stiffer than a single keel and had some aerodynamic benefits.

Red Bull Racing followed this theory with a more streamlined V Keel on the RB2. This leaves only Ferrari with a new car that sports a single keel (and not the "V" keel reported elsewhere), then the Toro Rosso inheriting the single keel philosophy of the Red Bull RB1.

Mechanical Layout

With the V8 engine's length dimensionally restricted (via bore size and spacing), the engines are 10cm shorter than the V10s. The aerodynamicists want to keep the 2005 cars' wheelbases, so the lost 10cm needs to be made up in the chassis somewhere.

Adding length at the front or rear of the car affects weight distribution; a longer gearbox moves weight forwards, while a longer monocoque has the reverse effect. In deciding which end to add length, the team's tyre supply needs to be considered.

Bridgestone prefers slightly less weight on the front tyres to the wider squarer Michelins, so Bridgestone teams have tended to lengthen the chassis and keep the gearbox short.

Michelin teams have gone for the opposite solution. In extending the gearbox, the rear suspension mountings are now spaced further from the back of the engine.

As can be seen from the Honda gearbox (pictured), the wishbone mounts are now spaced well back on the metal insert in the casing. Last year these were right on the front edge of the casing.

The issue with this longer gearbox is the leverage effect of the car's weight through the gearbox casing. Red Bull have opted to reinforce the engine installation with a carbon fibre strut mounted between the back of the tub and the gearbox, regaining the lost stiffness.

Undercut sidepods

Along with Keel-less front ends, undercut sidepods are now the norm. This aids the flow from under the raised nose of the chassis to around the sidepods, the vertical splitter over the shadow plate directs the flow which gets picked up and kept away from the rear wing by the flip up running along the sidepod.

Shoulder wings

Another device adopted widely this year is the shoulder wing. These don't really add much downforce but work to split the flow passing over the sidepod to that passing to the side. They achieve this by either trailing a vortex off the wing tip to drive air around the flank of the sidepod, or with large vertical fin (as pictured).

Cascade flaps

By the end of last year, several teams had followed Renault's lead and added an extra element to the front wing endplate. This small flap efficiently adds downforce and sends it wake wide around the car so as not to disturb the rear wing.

BAR used a full width flap with a twist in its profile to work the outer edges of the wing harder, the twist having a similar effect to the shorter endplate mounted versions. It is this full width cascade wing that Ferrari have adopted in testing in Bahrain. Renault and Midland neatly fold the endplate to make the cascade flap, while most other teams simply bolt a V shaped flap to the endplate.

U bends exhausts

With Sidepods becoming ever slimmer, the limitation for a slim rear end is the exhaust system.

For 2006, the V8 engines have the advantage of one less exhaust and the pipe work is now neater. But still, the usual method of routing the exhaust collector backwards and then having a short secondary pipe to protrude through the bodywork takes up valuable space at the back of the car.

What Ferrari and Sauber (still with Ferrari engines back in 2005) did, was point the collector forwards in the void behind the radiators and then bend it through 180-degrees to point the secondary pipe downstream. This minimises the pipe work at the back of the car and allows a discrete forward mounted exhaust outlets. Now Toyota and Midland have followed this route.

Wings

For some time front wing shapes have tended to converge into a slightly dipped main plane and another flick up at the outer tips. Now rear wing designs appear to be going through a more fundamental rethink.

Renault kicked off with a counter intuitive design placing the steepest section at the outer tips, which in theory would make the most drag, but the effect might be to minimise the upwash from the central diffuser tunnel, which would also reduce drag.

Ferrari have also tried a wing of this design in testing, leaving the balance of the field to adopt more conventional twisted wings with the centre section being worked the hardest to reduce drag induced at the wing tips.

Next week: team by team technical analysis

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