2013 Final Regulation Changes

Happy New Year my F1 brethren! It's already Jan and I can almost smell the new Pirelli rubber...can't wait for the race season to kick off.

Just saw this update on some of the 2013 regulation changes:

DRS use
For safety reasons, in 2013 drivers are only be able to utilise the Drag Reduction System (DRS) overtaking aid within the designated DRS zones during practice and qualifying. Previously drivers had been free to deploy the system as they pleased in these sessions.

Active double-DRS systems outlawed
In 2012 Mercedes developed a clever concept whereby air was channelled through an opening in the rear-wing endplate when DRS was activated and then fed through the car to help stall the front wing. For 2013 active drag reducing systems involving the DRS, such as this, have been banned.

Stepped noses
Teams have the option of tidying up the aesthetics of their cars in 2013 with the introduction of new regulations aimed at improving the look of ‘ugly’ stepped noses first seen in 2012. A small piece of laminate - nicknamed a ‘modesty' or 'vanity' panel - may now be used to smooth the nose section.

Crash testing
To make F1 cars ever safer, tougher new tests on roll structures and the survival cell have been introduced for 2013. Furthermore, every chassis that a team produces, as opposed to just one, will now be subject to a static load test of the survival cell.

Curfews
The team personnel curfew - which prevents team members from being in the paddock during specified periods - has been extended from six to eight hours on Thursday nights for 2013. The number of exceptions allowed during a season has also been reduced from four to two.

Front wing tests
For 2013 front wing deflection tests will be more stringent to lessen the possibility of flexible bodywork being used to enhance aerodynamic performance.

Minimum weight
The minimum weight of the car and driver has been increased from 640kg to 642kg to compensate for the slightly increased weight of Pirelli's 2013 tyres. The mandatory weight distribution has also been adjusted accordingly.

Force majeure
The ‘force majeure’ allowance relating to when a car stops on the track during qualifying has been deleted from the regulations. For 2013 any car that stops on the track must have enough fuel for the mandatory one-litre minimum sample plus an additional amount proportional to the amount of fuel that would have been used in returning to the pits (determined by the FIA).

Qualifying
Not an actual regulation change, but as the official 2013 entry list comprises 22 cars - two fewer than in 2012 - six cars rather than seven will now be eliminated at the end of both Q1 and Q2.

Championship entry fees
Championship entry fees have been revised. Red Bull, as constructors’ champions, were required to pay US$500,000 plus US$6000 for each point gained in the 2012 World Constructors’ Championship to enter the 2013 championship. Every other team was required to pay a basic fee of US$500,000 plus US$5000 for each point scored in 2012.


Source, F1.com
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/12877/

 

Thanks for posting!

 

Front wing deflection test will be interesting for RB-but I'm sure Newey will find a way....

 

This is curious. Any ideas of the reason behind this?

 

I certainly don't know, but guess "somebody" is suspected of not making chassis #2 etc as strong as #1.

These are, or at least should be, non-destructive tests - You pass, you play. OTOH, if it breaks, it's probably not as good as #1........

The Cooks version;

An extract from the full rule;

This, and many more "complicated" tests defined in art. 18 were only done on #1 until now - Seems reasonable to me that every tub should pass.....

Cheers,
Ian
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8707/fia.html

 

And it seems you can still do just that!.....

That's a *lot* of wiggle room IMO!.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

Lotus re-signed Grosjean.

 

So if you win you pay more for the privilege?

An extra $1000 per point? Seems really petty / low brow/ penny pinching / miserly. Bernie's daughter blows through a grand an hour in her sleep.

 

Yep!..... Actually makes a lot of sense in this case IMO.

http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=391134

Cheers,
Ian

 

All in all positive.

I think Pirelli has misunderstood the term "fat tires".

 

forgive the off-topic, but I noticed 22 entries instead of 24. Who's gone?
Oops, forget I said that....it's HRT

 

Outside of the improvement you'll never notice the difference.

 

Nice easy read. Thanks for posting!

 

What a load of bollocks ... IMO.

Pete

 

DRS is a load of ...... IMO

 

I'm pretty sure that's not new. The reason is that when testing the chassis for initial passing, they test up to breaking point. For example, Ferrari's F2012 chassis cracked during its initial tests last year. However it stayed in tact, but you certainly wouldn't want to be using it

A chassis you plan to you, you don't want tested to the point where the stress weakens the unit - that explains the *wiggle* room.

 

Understood. But it is new that they now test every survival cell not just #1. Previously, if #1 passed and you didn't change anything, you were in the clear.

AFAIK, Ferrari #1 failed these so called non-destructive tests last year. That's why they had to re submit it.

Cheers,
Ian

 

lol

 

I get it on a technical level. I just don't understand why...? There again, do we really understand the why regarding anything in F1?

 

I did offer a potential "why" above, but really, does anyone think F1 needs the plethora of regulations that now govern F1? And in the end, all these regulations do is make things homogenous and stifle creativity.

Engines are a classic example. We now have the common garden variety V8, soon to be replaced by a less powerful V6. Yet back in the not too distant past we had teams competing with very different engines (size and capacity) and the racing was brilliant - without the need to Nintendoesque gimmicks. The FiA should be constrained to write regulations for each major component of the car that can fit on one page.

 

My apologies, which "why" are you talking about?

Why the additional wiggle room? [Should all tubs have to undergo 100% tests?]

Or why the desire for a consistent, measurable, survival cell for 'em?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Yes, why the wiggle room...?

 

Manufacturing tolerances is my guess.

They test one "hard", and it survived. As long as the subsequent cells test in the same ball park no need to push them to the limit. I guess they want to;

a - Ensure they're "safe" and no funny business is going on.
b - Don't want to over-stress 'em.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Ok, makes sense.