Aerodynamic & Mechanical Updates 2010 - F1-Forecast

INTRODUCTION 

AERODYNAMIC & MECHANICAL UPDATES 2010 

Brawn BGP001 

THE F1-FORECAST.COM 

TECHNICAL FILES 

AERODYNAMIC & MECHANICAL 

UPDATES 2010 

4 th December 2010 

Volume I & II 

F1 Season 2010 | Dominique Madier 

The F1-Forecast Technical Files 

www.f1-forecast.com 

Volume I & II – Page 1 

http://www.f1-forecast.com


TABLE OF CONTENTS F1 Season 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION 8 

2. BAHRAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW 9 

2.1 GENERALITIES 9 

2.2 MCLAREN 11 

2.3 RENAULT 22 

2.4 FERRARI 31 

2.5 RED BULL 52 

2.6 WILLIAMS 63 

2.7 SAUBER 68 

2.8 MERCEDES 72 

2.9 LOTUS 79 

2.10 FORCE INDIA 81 

3. AUSTRALIA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 82 


3.2 SAUBER 83 

3.3 MERCEDES GP 84 



3.6 RED BULL RACING 92 



3.9 SAUBER 98 

3.10 TORO ROSSO 101 

3.11 VIRGIN 102 

3.12 LOTUS 103 

4. MALAYSIA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 104 







4.7 LOTUS 120 


The F1-Forecast Technical Files Volume I & II – Page 2 




5. CHINA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 122 









6. SPAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW 147 






6.6 VIRGIN 164 

6.7 LOTUS 165 




7. MONACO – TECHNICAL REVIEW 174 







7.7 SAUBER 191 

7.8 VIRGIN 192 


8. TURKEY – TECHNICAL REVIEW 196 








8.8 LOTUS 219 

9. CANADA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 220 











9.7 SAUBER 233 

9.8 LOTUS 234 

10. EUROPE – TECHNICAL REVIEW 235 




10.4 RED BULL 249 





11. GREAT-BRITAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW 265 



11.3 RED BULL 280 



12. GERMANY – TECHNICAL REVIEW 292 





12.5 RED BULL 325 




12.9 LOTUS 330 

12.10 VIRGIN 330 

13. HUNGARY – TECHNICAL REVIEW 331 


13.2 RED BULL 333 












13.10 LOTUS 359 

14. BELGIUM – TECHNICAL REVIEW 360 




14.4 RED BULL 373 



15. ITALY – TECHNICAL REVIEW 384 




15.4 RED BULL 392 





15.9 SAUBER 399 

15.10 VIRGIN 400 

15.11 LOTUS 401 

15.12 HRT 402 

16. SINGAPORE – TECHNICAL REVIEW 403 




16.4 RED BULL 414 





17. JAPAN – TECHNICAL REVIEW 426 


17.2 RED BULL 427 









17.7 SAUBER 454 


17.9 VIRGIN 456 

18. KOREA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 457 


18.2 RED BULL 458 






19. BRAZIL – TECHNICAL REVIEW 475 







20. UAE – TECHNICAL REVIEW 488 



20.3 RED BULL 490 


21. TECHNICAL ARTICLES 492 

21.1 2010 REGULATION CHANGES- 2009/2010 COMPARISON 492 

21.2 2010 RULE CHANGES- ACCOMODATING LARGER FUEL TANKS 494 

21.3 F-DUCTS: HOW DO THEY WORK ? 495 

21.4 COOLING: OPTIONS FOR OUTLETS 503 

21.5 THE END OF POD WING MOUNTED MIRRORS 516 

21.6 RIDE HEIGHT: ALTERING BETWEEN QUALIFYING AND RACE 523 

21.7 FRONT WING BALLAST 529 

21.8 USE OF RAPID PROTOTYPING MATERIALS 530 

21.9 BLOWN REAR WINGS: SEPERATING AND STALLING 532 

21.10 ALL ABOUT BEAM WINGS 536 

21.11 XTRAC GEAR BOX 538 

21.12 COSWORTH FORMULA 1 V8 541 

21.13 SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY DRIVES SUCCESS AT RED BULL RACING 546 

21.14 SPLITTERS EXPLAINED 552 

21.15 SPLITTERS : NEW DEFLECTION TEST AND CONSTRUCTION 559 





21.16 THE PULLROD PHENOMENOM 564 

21.17 A GRIPPING TALE 570 

21.18 RED BULL PULL ROD SUSPENSION: WHAT IS LOOKS LIKE – HOW IT BENEFITS AERODYNAMICS 577 

21.19 HOW LOW CAN YOU GO ? 586 

21.20 MOVING PARTS 593 

21.21 KERS ANATOMY 597 

21.22 EXHAUST BLOWN DIFFUSERS: PICS FROM THE PAST 603 

21.23 2010 F1 CIRCUITS : GEARBOX & ENGINE STRESS DATA 608 

21.24 2010 F1 CIRCUITS : SPEED DATA 609 

21.25 2010 F1 CIRCUITS : GENERAL DATA 610 

21.26 TYRE COMPOUNDS FOR THE 2010 SEASON 611 

21.27 SPRING – LESS REAR SUSPENSION – A QUIET REVOLUTION 612 

21.28 TYRE TESTING SENSORS – WHAT WAS SEEN IN ABU DHABI 618 

22. VIDEOS 632 




INTRODUCTION F1 Season 2010 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this new report of the series « The Technical Files of F1-Forecast » is to present some 

aerodynamic and mechanical updates of the Formula 1 of the 2010 season. 

The updates are mainly presented with pictures, drawings and comments coming from: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F1-Formula1.com web site (illustrations by Giorgio Piola) 

http://www.formula1.com 

Scarbsf1’s Blog by Craig Scarborough 

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/ 

Formula 1 Tech and Art’s Blog by Michalis K [Bar555] 

http://formula1techandart.wordpress.com/ 

F1 Technical.net web site 

http://www.f1technical.net/ 

James Allen on F1 web site 

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/ 

Magazine Autosport (illustrations by Giorgio Piola) 

Magazine RaceCar Engineering 

Keep in mind that this report is just a compilation of articles coming from the references mentioned 

above. 

F1-Forecast wishes you a good reading. 

Dominique Madier 

Webmaster F1-Forecast.com 

Montreal – Canada – 4 th December 2010 




BAHRAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

2. BAHRAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW 

[Source: Craig Scarborough’s blog] 

[Source: Michalis K. (Bar555) - Formula 1 tech and art’s blog] 

[Source: F1-Technical.net] 

[Source: Formula1.com (illustrations by Giorgio Piola)] 

[Source: Race Engineering Magazine] 

[Source: Autosport Magazine (illustrations by Giorgio Piola)] 

As the much anticipated first race of the year, Bahrain did not offer much excitement in the race. Equally 

the build up the legality of the McLaren rear wing did not deliver the row many were expecting. However 

some technical developments did turn up for the Bahrain race and a smaller legality row did emerge. 

Here we look at what was new and what was legal at Sakhir. 

2.1 Generalities 

Diffuser openings 

Scrutineering was expected to be the start of a row over rear wings, but instead the FIA technical 

delegates only found a one smaller issue the diffuser of two cars. Both McLaren and Mercedes new 

diffusers were considered to be pushing the limit of the rules with the opening for the starter motors. 

The rules provide for one opening in the diffuser for the starter motor shaft to pass through in order to 

start the engine. Normally this opening is a necessary evil, as the teams need to start the engine and it 

effectively puts a hole inside the diffuser, allowing pressure to transfer from the high pressure above the 

diffuser into the low pressure region below it, costing some downforce. Last years some teams such as 

Brawn put a tiny sprung flap over the hole to stop this pressure migration. 

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Volume I – Page 9 




Now these teams have sought to actually gain from the presence of this hole. By widening the hole to 

form a wider slot, the hole can make the diffuser work like a two element wing. The airflow through the 

slot allows the diffuser to be steeper and create more downforce. It was this advantage the scrutineers 

sought to stop and have asked the teams redesign the parts before the next race. This is likely to cause a 

small loss in downforce, but not an appreciable difference in on track performance. 

The starter hole (yellow) is wider on the McLaren and Mercedes and allows some aerodynamic benefit 





2.2 McLaren 

As with most of the teams McLaren arrived with a car very close to the specification run during the last 

days of testing. But with Bahrain being the first time the car can be officially scrutineered, this was the 

chance to see of their clever rear wing would be legal. Although the wing proved to be within the 

wording of the rules their diffuser fell foul of a loose interpretation of the diffuser regulations. 

McLaren snorkel and rear wing 

The duct runs from the snorkel to the rear wing flap 

Throughout testing rumours circulated that McLaren were running a clever rear wing, that allowed the 

driver to affect its aerodynamics to increase top speed. This was admitted over the course of the 

weekend by Team principal Martin Whitmarsh, but only once the design had passed scrutineering. 

What McLaren have done is to create a rear wing with a vent in the back of the flap, when air is blown 

through this vent the rear wings aerodynamics ‘stall’ which reduce both the downforce and drag the 

wing creates. 

This effect can be used on the straights to increase top speed with is largely governed by the amount of 

drag the rear wing creates. In the past teams have done this with flexible bodywork which has been 

outlawed by rules on flexible bodywork and load tests applied to all rear wings. 

Air passes from the shark fin through the flap to the vent 





McLarens design is ingenious as it used no moving mechanical parts, instead its left to the driver to 

influence the aerodynamics by pressing his leg against an opening in a duct inside the cockpit. This duct 

is fed by the snorkel on the top of the McLaren chassis and passes through the cockpit and out through 

the shark fin to the rear wing flap. In normal running (i.e. around corners) the drivers’ leg is clear of the 

duct and air passes inside the cockpit to ‘cool’ the driver. 

In the corners the duct blows air into the cockpit 

On the straight the driver presses his leg against the duct and flow passes to the rear wing 





As no flow passes to the rear wing vent the rear wing produces its normal amount of downforce to aid 

cornering. However on long straights the driver can move his leg from the brake pedal and press it 

against the opening in the duct, this sends the airflow from the snorkel through the duct to the rear wing 

vent. This airflow disrupts and stalls the wing adding some 3-4mph (6kmh) to the cars top speed. As he 

moves his leg from the duct to the brake pedal the airflow returns to the previous condition and the rear 

wing gains downforce once more. 

As the cars aerodynamic surfaces do not move to create the effect it is legal, as the rules only prohibits 

‘moveable aerodynamic devices’. Unless the other teams protest this design will remain legal and 

therefore McLaren’s rivals will need to copy it in order to regain the advantage. 

Finding space for the snorkel on the top of the chassis won’t be a problem as all teams have access 

panels in this area, but finding a route for the duct to exit the cockpit will be a greater issue as the 

monocoques are homologated and changes cannot be made except for safety and reliability reasons. 

Floor Detail 

McLaren added these floor details (yellow) as part of the Barcelona update 

McLaren ran a variety of new details on the MP4-25, which included this new duct in the floor. Sitting 

just ahead of the tyre, this lets air pass from above to below the floor, which then passes the coved 

section of florr beside the diffuser. The coved (ridged) section was first used on the RB5 and has been 

copied by several teams. However so far no one has gone as far as McLaren in makign the top deck of 





the diffuser reach up as far the full width of the beam wing. McLaren have even added a slot to this 

section to keep the flow attached. 

McLaren ran this vent with both a rear facing outlet and louvers 

Additionally the team ran with different cooling outlets by the cockpit, some of these featured both an 

rear facing outlet and louvers along its top and side surfaces. 





New diffuser for Bahrain 

Diffuser details and changes from Launch: 

Bahrain 

1 - The horizontal section does not feature a tab anymore 

2 - The side section upper wall has now an extended tab (fence) 

3 - Larger hole to access the motor starter 

4 - The central section upper part has a parallel to the ground line shape instead of catenary. 

5 - Additional slit 

6 - The rectangular slot is now closed 

7 - Double connection elements of the wing’s endplates to the diffuser upper wall instead of single 

Launch 





Rear aero solutions 

The rear of the new MP4-25 features various aerodynamic solutions that have been devised through 

wind-tunnel testing and on-track work. At first glance it's the car's long wheelbase, with its long and 

narrow gearbox, that catches the eye, but it's actually the airflow management at the back which is more 

unusual. Like the Red Bull, the exhaust exits have been moved towards the rear of the car (large red 

arrow), whilst air from the gearbox radiator, which has been cooled with the help of air carefully 

channelled through the airbox (blue arrow), is also utilised for aerodynamic benefit. Directed towards 

the top of the rear wing's lower section and the diffuser (small red arrows), it intentionally interferes 

with airflow over these parts at certain speeds, causing them to stall. Another change to the design of 

the MP4-25 is the unique central pillar (yellow area) on which the rear wing is mounted. 





McLaren continue with snowplough design 

McLaren Mercedes have copied the snowplough 

that featured on the 2009 Williams contender. 

As McLaren introduced it as of its first test with 

the MP4/25, Williams dumped it in favour of 

cleaner frontal aerodynamic. 

The system itself is fairly simple in its operation 

and effectively acts like a diffuser mounted 

higher above the ground. Part of the airflow 

under the nose is split left and right of the 

plough, while everything that flows underneath 

is slightly expanded, reducing its pressure and 

therefore creating a suction effect of the car 

towards the ground. The aerodynamics of it are 

also similar to the nosecone of the Renault R29, but possibly a bit more efficient. 

McLaren's new MP4-25 features a totally new front wing, although the endplates are derived from ones 

that the team often tested but never raced with during the 2009 season. 





Bahraini front wing spec 

Front wing details and changes from Launch: 

1.Modified movable second flap mechanism 

2.New simpler bargeboards, having two holes 

3.The additional winglets span is now reduced as they do no longer extend over and out of the endplates 

4.The air fin stabilizer is now rejected 





The two holes and the outward slopping endplate bottom increase the air quantity passing under the 

wing. 





Front wing revision at Melbourne due to FIA request 

Melbourne 

Mc Laren was forced by FIA to revise the front wing endplates at Australia for safety reasons as their 

edges (in yellow color) were found to be too sharp. 

Sakhir 





New sidepod panels for Bahrain 

The new elongated and wider panels, introduced at Sakhir, connect directly to the floor’s turning vanes 

and offer a better airflow around the sidepod bottoms. 





2.3 Renault 

Although announced, Renaults' new diffuser was quote a different design to that seen in testing. Since 

its launch the R30 had a diffuser that also incorporated the exit from the sidepods, creating one very 

large opening at the back of the car. What the team have now done is to split the two functions into 

their own tunnels. 

Thus the diffuser has a conventional lower deck, while the upper deck is now set back from the rear face 

of the diffuser and the top of its tunnels are clearly visible. Then between this and beam wing the 

sidepods are able to vent the heat from the engine and radiators. With this new shape, the size of the 

diffuser is apparent probable the second largest to McLarens super diffuser. 

Along with the new diffuser the opening for the starter motor shaft has been enlarged, not to the same 

degree as McLaren or Mercedes, but the FI add look carefully at the design and decided no changes were 

necessary. 

Allied to the diffuser was the return of the complex wing seen briefly in testing. The full width cascade 

elements appear to be floating above the lower wing and its endplates, however the illusion is created 

by the endplate providing support from the back cascade. 

New front wing 

After having displayed their 2009 front wing on 

the presented R30, the team ran a curvy front 

wing during all winter testing, before 

introducing this new spec at free practice in 

Bahrain. While the base profile retains largely 

the same shape, the cascade element now 

features a much deeper spoon to catch more air 

and push it upwards. The item also has extends 

above the front wing endplate and in fact has 

its own small endplate attached on the outer 

edge of the panel. 

Also interesting is the lower end of the front 

wing endplate which sort of forms an extension 

to the wing's elements. Renault is obviously aware of where they lost last year's development race, and 

are now pushing heavily on front wing development. 





R30 front suspension revisions at Bahrain 

Renault R30 adopts a zero keel front suspension design. At the very first Winter test at Valencia the R30 

front suspension featured wider wishbones and modified joints to the car body. Renault updated its 

wishbones to a wider profile probably to gain a small amount of extra downforce. 





R30 – Bahraini engine cover details 

Renault’s engine cover may look monolithic but is mainly consisted of 3 parts (the 2 side parts and the 

upper with the shark fin one). On the contrary McLaren’s much more complicated cover is consisted of 

multiple parts due to the F-Duct system which is housed inside and the multiple cooling choices. 





R30 – Bahraini rear wing spec 

The R30 run at Bahrain (and late winter test at Barcelona) a W-shaped waved rear wing, with a single 

pillar *1+ to increase wing’s stiffness and a black colored Gurney tab *2+ to help increase the level of 

downforce. The endplates though remained similar to the launch spec, with three horizontal slits [3] and 

a cut at their up rear part [4] to reduce drag. 

During winter testing at Valencia and Jerez the R30 run at least two different spec of wings. At Valencia 

the wing had a highly waved-shape and a “gigantic” tab to produce a big amount of downforce. At Jerez 

the R30 was equipped with a new diffuser that made the car produce more downforce and that allowed 

the team to dramatically reduce the size of this tab in favor of top speed. 





R30 - front wing – major differences between Bahraini and early winter 

testing spec 

1.The main plane’s connection to the endplates has been changed, having now a curvy shape to raise the 

quantity of air passing under the wing 

2.The cascades have now a wavy shape and their’s span has been increased to add more downforce 

3.The endplates have a more complex design, consisted of two elements now. There is a also an outer fin 

to guide the airflow away from the front wheels 

4. The endplate slopping outwards rear part also helps direct airflow away from the front tyres 

5. The vertical adjuster is responsible to operate the flap angle by max 6° 













R30 – nose vanes addition at Bahrain 

A small set of vanes was added behind the under nose skirts to improve further the quality of air passing 

under the car. 









2.4 Ferrari 

Ferrari arrived in Bahrain with a car very similar to the one seen in testing, also their pace and 

consistency seen in testing was matched in Sakhir. The only alteration to note on the car for the grand 

prix was a revised cooling cover near the back of the sidepods. This had three slots moulded into the 

cover near the exhaust pipe. While not a significant development, No other team have an interpretation 

of the bodywork rules to create opening in this area. As the rules brought in for 2009 enforced a 

simplified shape for the sidepods and with limited openings. However Ferrari were allowed to run in this 

configuration so we can expect other team to be able to place these sorts of vents into the sidepods. 

Even with these openings Ferrari suffered with the heat in Bahrain and elected to change their engines 

before qualifying to ensure they had reliability. 





















At Sakhir the rear wing was sustained practically unchanged since launch time. Nevertheless the new 

shark finned engine cover was connected directly on the wing’s second plane. Lastly the wing features a 

small slit in the middle zone of the main plane to let air bleed through it preventing wing’s stalling in high 

speed and high attack angle. 

The nose winglets were relocated higher on the nose at Sakhir compared to Launch. Their role apart 

from housing FOM cameras is to act also as air stabilizers. 









Ferrari from the very first winter test at Valencia run a new revised front wing with new cascade winglets 

and modified wing planes. The new cascade winglets [1] of reduced span, are more boxy and have also a 

small inner endplate and the second plane features now a new inner wavy profile [2]. Finally the inner fin 

attached on the inner rear endplates surface was also removed [3]. 

Launch 

The endplates were revised also, having now the outer fin between the winglet and the endplate 

rejected [4], a new rear end [5], a slightly revised winglet [6], an additional horizontal triangular fin to the 

floor’s rear outer surface *7+ and finally small revisions to the flap angle activator mechanism *8+. 

Bahrain 

The changes aim to increase front downforce and frond end grip to counter face the mechanical grip loss 

by the reduction of the front wheels size. 





Diffuser revision for Bahrain 

Launch 

The side winglets (in orange color) were abolished for Bahrain proving that a less complicated 

configuration is sometimes more efficient. Why that ? CFD and aero tunnel data may differ from track 

data meaning that the team have to revise the optimum in theory configuration to a more suitable one 

for track. The reasons may be a problematic tunnel calibration or because various minor track data 

factors not possible to be examined in detail (some factors are tyre pressure, g-forces, mass transfer, 

suspension behavior, pitch sensitivity, air density and temperature etc) are able in total to shift by a little 

the car behavior on track. Another possible reason that could explain the loss of those winglets may well 

be the revisions to the floor side fences and sidepod panels that took place at last winter test at 

Barcelona. 

Bahrain 





F10 floor and sidepod panels revisions at Bahrain 

Launch 

During February test at Barcelona the team introduced new front floor’s side fences. The vertical fence 

blocks the upper air flow coming from the inner bargeboard-body zone from exiting out of the floor 

surface and mixing up with the “bleeding” portions of air coming under the chassis. Any contact between 

the two flow layers would create unwanted turbulence. To reduce drag the old fence featured a small 

slit. The new fence shape is generally much simpler and it becomes higher towards the rear. Moreover 

the floor section under the new fence is rising slightly up to ease the air coming out from this point 

instead of coming later from the back and mixing up with the upper airflow layer. Of course the ideal 

would be to seal air from exiting under the chassis with curtains but this is forbidden by the rules 

(ground effect). Apart form the new fence another evolution took place to the sidepod panel where an 

additional triangular fin was added to the lower panel surface. This extra fin helps reducing drag by 

creating creates vortexes towards the rear of the car. 

Bahrain 





Under nose vanes update for Bahrain 

The car was equipped with a new set of vanes placed under the front suspension’s lower wishbone at 

Sakhir. The new set is directly attached onto the chassis while the older version featured two inclined 

pillars to hold the vanes. The pillar-less version offers a better airflow under the car as the air blocking 

pillars are now removed. Lastly the new set does not feature anymore the saw-tooth upper profile 

towards the rear like the older version which helped to reduce turbulence, probably because the new 

shape offers a cleaner airflow. 

Launch 

Bahrain 





A very nice look on the diffuser of the Ferrari F10 : 





Front suspension installation 

Ferrari inerter visible through the hatch in the top of the chassis 

Unusually for a teams media image, this shot shows the front inerter installation on the F10. What we 

can see here is the car without its access panels, revealing how the team mount the inerter between the 

front suspension rockers. An inerter is a simple device akin the Renault Mass Damper, pioneered initially 

by McLaren. It consists of a weight that spins on a threaded rod as the suspension moves, in order to 

balance out the ‘bounce’ of the tyres. This creates a more consistent load at the contact patch and 

resultingly better grip from the tyres. We can also the linkage in the steering column in the larger access 

panel. While on the edge of the monocoque is a round adjuster for the torsion springs. This has been 

reported as a ‘ride height adjuster’, but a similar pair of adjusters has been on the top of the Ferrari 

moncooque for years. I suspect these are simply the same preload adjusters, re-sited to suit the ”V” 

nose. 





New faired wheel 

Ferrari kicked off the test with the new faired wheel seen on the last day of Jerez testing. This included a 

new rear wheel shape with a distinctive stepped shape. While the front wheel retained the two 

concentric ‘fairings’. These have been developed to stop overtly aerodynamically shaped wheels or 

fitting the static wheel fairings used last year. This has effectively banned any form of ‘bodywork’ from 

sitting outside of the wheel. Ferrari have taken the stepped shape for the BBS rear wheel in order to 

meet the minimum shape allowed for the wheel in the new rules. Thus creating the smallest opening for 

aerodynamic benefit. While the new front wheel add-ons appear to be part of the wheel and not carbon 

fibre add ons. This is to circumvent the rules banning bodywork from being outboard of the wheel (-no 

part of the car, other than those specifically defined in Articles 12.8.1 and 12.8.2, may obscure any part 

of the wheel when viewed from the outside of the car towards the car centre line along the axis of the 

wheel) and still meet the wording of homogenous material demanded for the wheel itself. So these must 

be made of the same material as the wheel. 

For the 2010 season the FIA have outlawed the carbon fibre wheel fairings that became so popular in 

2009. In a move that may be seen as going against the spirit of the regulations (but which has been 

approved by the FIA), Ferrari have instead incorporated an integral aero device (inset - yellow rings) into 

the design of their wheel rim. The device is detachable (main drawing), but to be legal it is made from 

the same material as the rim itself. As wheel rims have to be homologated and can't be changed during 

the season, Ferrari's rivals will be unable to copy this. 





Secured wheel nuts 

The sight of an errant wheel from Fernando Alonso's 

Renault bouncing across the track at the 2009 

Hungarian Grand Prix, prompted the FIA to impose 

new rules this season to ensure wheel nuts remain 

fastened. Ferrari's solution has been to create an 

entirely new wheel hub, which features a catch 

either side of the nut that locks into position (see 

inset) when the mechanic removes his tyre gun 

following the wheel change. 

Front wing 

During the last pre-season test at Barcelona, 

Ferrari introduced a new version of the F10's front 

wing. When compared to the older version (inset), 

we can see it features a tiny addition to the rear 

of the endplate (1) and a new main profile with a 

different flap which has a small endplate (2) on its 

inner edge. 













Exhaust comparison 

To ensure the exhaust pipe vents as far away from the rear wing as possible, Ferrari have reverted to a 

solution they used five seasons ago on the F2005. In contrast to the design of last year's car (see main 

picture, black arrow), the pipes have been mounted so they'll vent nearer the front of the car, rather 

than the back (see inset, black arrow). 









Engine cover 









2.5 Red Bull 

Closely following their testing form, Red Bull were fast but lacked reliability. With problems both in 

practice and then in the race costing Vettel the lead. This problem was initially thought to be a problem 

with the new low line exhaust system. Red Bull have innovated by placing their exhaust exits low down 

on the sidepods and blowing them over the floor and into the upper diffuser deck. This fast flowing 

exhaust gas add some downforce to the diffuser, but cracks in the more vulnerable low placed pipework 

was thought to be the cause for Vettel loss of power. It transpires that the problem was a faulty spark 

plug, costing him a chance of a podium finish. 





Higher gearbox positioning 

Like Ferrari, Red Bull wanted more space for their double diffuser. Chief technical officer Adrian Newey's 

simple solution was to elevate the position of the gearbox (see yellow highlighted area). The RB6's rear 

suspension is now slightly higher off the ground than before. An additional benefit of this solution is that 

the team have been able to keep the suspension's pull-rod configuration, since with its lower pick-up 

points now higher, they don't interfere with the new central diffuser section. 

New exhaust positioning 

The exhausts on the RB6 have been 

repositioned in Bahrain. Before the exits 

were above the rear suspension's lower 

wishbones (as on last year's car). Now they 

are much lower, just inside the rear tyres. 

This is designed to increase the efficiency of 

the rear diffuser's side channels. However, it 

could prove a cooling risk at the start or if 

running at low speed (such as behind the 

safety car), when the slower airflow over the 

car will have less power to redirect the hot 

air from the exhaust. 

















Optimum brake caliper position 

While Red Bull have chosen a development 

approach rather than a complete redesign, the 

list of optimisations on the car is nearly endless. 

One of the more interesting items is the location 

of the brake calipers, constructed by Brembo in 

Red Bull's case. 

On both the front and rear wheels, the calipers 

are positioned at the bottom end of the brake 

discs, creating the lowest possible centre of 

gravity for the wheels. While Honda have come 

close to this in 2006, most teams have 

compromised their approach by positioning the 

pads more to the rear. This position was often necessary to provide enough cooling to the brakes, and it 

is a particular achievement that Red Bull managed to design its brake system like this, at a time when the 

brake system will be pushed harder than ever. 

Where has the simplicity of the front wing gone? 

One of the aims of last year's aerodynamic 

regulation changes was to reduce the interest 

in aerodynamic developing by limiting the 

possible development areas, including the front 

wing. The problem with F1 designers and their 

teams is that they live for every single tenth, 

and hence rather then stepping back, a 

regulation change empowers them to look for 

other solutions. 

Red Bull's RB6 front wing for instance is a 

development of the RB5 front wing. While 

Newey traditionally designed cars with simple 

front wing endplates, they team have taken it 

so far that the endplates now feature curves and double venting holes. 

The wing itself now features 2 slot gaps, the lower one certainly inspired by McLaren's front wing of 

2008. The stacked element still consist of 2 combined small wings, providing a better solution for this car 

than the curvaceous designs that Renault or McLaren have come up with. 

One wonders how a front wing can become even more exotic... 





RB6, front wing – Bahrain and early winter spec comparison 

The team used a revised wing at the second winter test at Jerez with smaller additional winglets [1]. 

Those winglets, which were actually separated into three sections, are now separated into two. The first 

section, the closest to the endplate [2], which remains unchanged, has a double profile and aims mainly 

to add down force. The middle one [3] has a much smaller double profile and that was the one which 

was revised. having now endplates also. The third inner one [4], mainly acted as an air stabilizer is now 

rejected. The rejection of the third section also made the mechanics to relocate the vertical supporting 

element [5]. 

The same wing was brought to Sakhir. 





RB6 – nose cone details 

A deep air channel is created over the nose via two high vertical nose side fences. The former RB5 chassis 

had also a similar U raised front chassis section. 

There is also a splitter in front of the cockpit to split the air around the driver’s helmet offering a 

smoother airflow and thus less drag. 





RB6 Steering wheel details 

The RB6 steering wheel has a “butterfly” shape, following the Mc Laren old trend with the dashboard 

placed in front of the steering wheel on the cockpit wall. The main functions of the RB6 steering wheel 

are the following. 

1. put the gearbox in neutral (green button with N indication) 

2.The red button “PIT” is to apply the speed limiter in the pit lane 

3.onboard radio (red button with radio indication) 

4.The black rotating button is to adjust the fuel-air mix in the engine 

5.Drink button to activate isotonic liquid flow to driver’s mouth 

6.REV button to engage reverse gear. There are several checks to prevent an accidental press off this 

button on track 

7.The knob with rain indication controls the differential at intermediate and wet conditions 

8.This button also modifies the clutch bite point 

9. Clutch paddles 

10. “OK” white button, this is to let the engineers know that the driver has heard a request 

11.Gear upshift paddle 

12.Gear downshift paddle 













2.6 Williams 

Aside from Mercedes, Williams was probably the most changed car in Bahrain. Changes to the diffuser 

and pod wings were seen in testing, as was their blown rear wing. This is a very different design to the 

McLaren snorkel fed wing. Where as McLaren ‘stall; the wing to gain downforce, the Williams wing 

constantly blows air through a slot made in the back of the wing to increase downforce. Wing of this 

design has been raced by McLaren and BMW Sauber in 2009. Which gets around the two element rear 

wing rule, by using the 15cm wide free zone in the middle of the wing to create an openThis nArrow 

opening diverges to create an exit the full width of the wing. Having the additional airflow underneath 

the wing allow it run at a steeper angle without stalling to create more downforce. Also new at the rear 

of the car was a cooling duct set into the back of the engine cover, the tall rectangular duct vents hot air 

from the engine bay and sidepods. As well as a neat row of five small vanes spanning between the rear 

wing endplate and the diffuser. These both stiffen the two items and allow the airflow to curve outwards 

behind the rear wheels. 

FW32 – Bahraini front wing spec 

The FW32 is equipped with a triple profiled front wing. This wing is not totally new but rather a heavily 

modified FW31‘s late 2009 season wing with revised endplates and twin upper cascade winglets (1) and 

additional high vertical inner endplates (2). 





FW32 – rear axle winglets 

The FW32 features multiple sets of winglets placed at the rear wheels internal zone. From their attack 

angle i assume that their role is to add down force directly to the rear axle. Those winglets could be 

regarded as movable aero parts but are considered by rules to be part of the rear braking system ! 





FW32 – undernose splitter update at Bahrain 

Williams abandoned the front snow plough project under the nose, which was introduced last year and it 

is now used by Mc Laren MP4/25, due to the adaptation of the 2009’s Brawn BGP001 splitter design. This 

splitter, which creates a kind of venturi effect under the car, is inclined downwards to the rear to 

accelerate the airflow under the car in an attempt to decrease further the under chassis pressure. An 

evolutionary step of the splitter design was introduced at Bahrain and specially the new design features 

a large middle slot (1) to allow part of the air to flow over the floor and towards the inner bargeboardcar 

body zone. 

It is worthy of mentioning that this part of the floor is an ideal place for mechanics to house blocks of 

heavy metal as ballast (2). 





FW32 nose cone details 

The Williams FW32 nose camera winglets position, possibly inspired by the last year Red Bull RB5, is 

exactly at the nose tip in such a way that a plane is formed. The nose cone, which resembles now to the 

hammerhead shark’s head, is really thin and its under side is also very flat, like the hammerhead shark ‘s 

under front body. The hammerhead shark’s strange plane head shape is to increase its capability for 

picking up electrical signals but the FW32 one is to increase airflow under the nose and to decrease front 

end pitch sensitivity. 

The oval hole at the nose cone tip helps to cool the nose housed electronics. A honecomb style 

protective frame covers the inlet to prevent small hazardous fragments (like little rocks) from entering in. 





At the top of the nose a U shaped structure is formed to channel air more efficiently over the nose (1) 

resembling to Red Bull’s design but in Williams case this channel is less deep. Finally there is a pitot tube 

(2) for measuring the car’s speed. 





2.7 Sauber 

C29 – Bahraini diffuser details 

1.Central lower section 

2.Upper double deck, which helps to extract more air from car underbody increasing significantly 

downforce production 

3.Mini channels in the central to smoothen the extracted from under car airflow 

4.Horizontal outer section 

5.Vertical fence to ensure that airflow is not going to separate from diffuser inner wall surfaces and 

follow the structure shape. 

6.Smaller inner vertical fence 

7.The tab prevents cold air coming from under the car mixing with hotter air (exhaust emissions, hot air 

from car body outlets) coming above the diffuser shape, boosting further downforce production. 





C29 – Bahraini rear wing details 

Sauber raced at Sakhir a usual for F1 standards rear wing with two horizontal slits (1) at the top of the 

endplates, double flap connectors (2) and double pillars to secure wing stiffness (3). The central wing 

section was flat while its outer extremities close to the endplates were bending upwards in a curvy way 

(4) to reduce drag as this concept reduces vortices behind the endplates profile. 

This wing design was also extensively tested during winter testing at Catalunya – Spain. 









C29 – Bahraini front wing details 

The C29 at Sakhir featured an interesting triple profiled front wing ( practically unchanged since launch 

time ) with additional double profiled cascade winglets (1). Those winglets are mounted on the main 

plane and provide a significant increase in front downforce. The flap moving mechanism is housed inside 

the black colored vertical elements (2) while exactly under them there are vertical fences to guide better 

the under wing airflow reducing turbulence. 

The endplates have a quite complicated design and can be considered to be consisted of two parts. The 

first part of triangular shape has a flopping outwards rear part (3) to divert air away from the front tyres 

profile reducing drag. The second part (4) is mounted a bit outer on the horizontal floor and has a 

upward-curving fin to add a small amount of downforce. 

Finally the main plane forms a square channel (5) close to the endplates to raise the quantity of air 

flowing under the wing’s profile to boost downforce production, a trend aided by the W-shaped main 

profile. 





2.8 Mercedes 

A new nose leads to two pairs of strakes (yellow) and a cooling outlet near the cockpit 

As the most changed car on the grid, Mercedes finally discarded their modified 2009 bodywork for 

definitive 2010 designs. This was largely formed of a new diffuser and nose arrangement. The diffuser 

was a typical 2010 double design and not the more aggressive one suggested in the press. Using a 

narrow 50cm upper deck nearly linked to the beam wing, the lower deck did fall foul of the starter hole 

issue that also affected McLaren. 

At the front the changes are just as subtle, but still a major step forwards from the Brawn-esque launch 

specification. The new nose is still a low swept bulbous affair, but the downforce producing strakes have 

gone. While the two front wing mounts have been elongated to create a sort of turning vane. 

Aiding the airflow back along the car from the new nose are two sets of strakes. Firstly along the top of 

the chassis, where the “V” nose bulges start are a pair of long vertical strips, probably to prevent airflow 

spilling off the top of the chassis and down the sides, the two angled strakes are added just in front of 

the sidepod inlets. 

Also controlling the airflow back along the car are vanes placed on the inside of the pod wings. 

Probably purely for the heat in Bahrain were several cooling outlets, firstly to cool the driver a pair of 

inlet scoops were fitted tot eh access holes on the sides of the chassis near the front suspension. Due to 

the extreme curvature of the top of the Mercedes “V” nose, these access hatches cannot be added to 

the top of the chassis, which is the conventional position. 

The aid engine cooling there was a small outlet added atop the sidepod alongside the cockpit. These sit 

just inside the exclusion area for sidepod openings and are effective as they are so close to the radiators. 





Pyramid-shaped roll structure 

A new solution on the Mercedes is this pyramid-shaped roll structure, which acts as an aero splitter 

within the airbox, separating and accelerating the incoming airflow (double blue arrow). Usually the roll 

structure simply follows the shape of the airbox, but Mercedes' design means the shape of the airbox 

can be altered independantly, avoiding the need for a new crash test, should changes be deemed 

necessary over the course of the season. The single blue arrow indicates a second air duct, while the red 

arrow sho ws the mandatory hole that all cars must have in order to be able to crane them off the circuit 

in the event of an accident. 





Mercedes W01 – Updated floor splitter at Bahrain 

Early Winter pre session testing 

W01’s initially featured a large and boxy floor splitter with wavy sides to guide airflow more efficiently 

under the car. The oversized Mercedes splitter, compared to other teams much smaller design, was the 

result of the team’s decision to house a really large amount of ballast inside it. During late winter testing 

and at the first 2010 race at Sakhir, the W01 had an updated splitter with additional holed side sections 

to improve further the aero efficiency of the car’s underbody. 

Bahrain 





Mercedes GP W01 – New sidepod panels at Bahrain 

Launch 

The Mercedes W01 car had been launched featuring 2009 BGP001 panels design and it was obvious that 

a new panel would show up soon before the first 2010 race and so it did happen. 





Bahrain 

The new panel which was also tried during late winter tests has a more boxy profile with the intense rear 

cut to be vanished. Another major difference was the addition of an extra winglet extending towards the 

inner zone to smoothen the air circulation between the panel and the sidepod surface. Lastly the lower 

panel section is inclined in a more intense way towards the inner to alter airflow around the sidepod 

bottoms, a change triggered by the introduction of a new diffuser at Sakhir also. 





W01 – Bahraini front wing spec 

The W01 at Bahrain featured many revisions at front wing compared to the one used during Winter 

testing.The changes that took place are the following : 

1.The inner additional winglet’s endplate is now smaller 

2.The inner second plane profile has a deep cut. This cut reduces the overall plane surface and the 

generated downforce 

3.A tab is added at the second plane extremities to add downforce and counter face the downforce loss 

by the reduction of the second plane’s surface 

4.The central zone is now stepped higher than the main profile level 

5. The curvy entry channel under the wing profile, at the endplates bottom edge, is slightly enlarged to 

increase further the quantity of air passing under the wing 





W01 – Nose cone updates at Bahrain 

1-The nose cone winglets were moved lower on the nose tip 

2-The side nose spoilers are now absent 

3-The nose cone tip hole is now enlarged to improve nose housed electronics 

4-Spoilers are added to improve the airflow towards the radiators 

5-Nose fins are added 





2.9 Lotus 

The new winglet (yellow) aids rear end downforce 

Of all of the new teams Lotus were the sole new team to arrive with a new development and also proved 

to be the only reliable new team in Bahrain. Aiding rear downforce was a mini winglet mounted a top the 

rear wing. 

This wing sits in a 15cm ‘free’ area in the centre of the rear wing. Sporting a two element winglet its 

probably works in two ways, firstly as a wing in its own right and secondly by creating a high pressure 

region just above the inlet for the rear wing slot, making it more effective. 

However like the other new teams Lotus were off the pace and need some 2s to match Toro Rosso’s 

pace and reach the second qualifying session. 





An extra wing to get more downforce 

Lotus are currently restraining themselves to 

develop a traditional aero package without 

taking too much risks. Because the team has 

quite some catching up to do, copying other 

solutions is the easiest and quickest way to 

move forward. 

The new Bahrain package includes a new front 

wing with an additional central element, copied 

from previous Toyota and BMW Sauber cars. 

Only in the central 15cm of the rear wing, it is 

allowed to have more than 2 elements in the 

rear wing, and so an additional element is added 

to create drag or generally increase the 

efficiency of the rear wing in that area. 

Additionally, an extra slot gap is added in the lower element of the wing to prevent the lower airflow to 

detach from the wing elements at higher speeds - or steeper angles of attack. 





2.10 Force India 

Force India had these complicated cooling outlets on the sidepods 

Managing the Mercedes engine in the Bahrain heat, Force India introduced several cooling opening on 

the car. The most unusual being the opening on the sidepods next to the cockpit. This is an area 

exploited by many teams, with either louvers or a rear facing vent. 

Force India used two of one and one of the other. By adding a louvered vent and separate louvers into 

the same panel. Additionally the car has opening at the very front of the sidepods and additional opening 

around the rear suspension. 




AUSTRALIA – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

3. AUSTRALIA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








After the heat and bumps of Bahrain, the teams arrived in Melbourne with its public roads and rain. A 

slower higher downforce track than Sakhir, the teams had been able to work on the smaller reliability 

issues encountered in Round 1. So we saw a surprising number of new develop parts across the field, as 

they turn their focus from reliability to performance. 

Just as Bahrain provided technical controversy so too did Australia. Q quiet row is brewing over ride 

height. Ride height is the gap between the ground the car, typically the lower it is the better the 

aerodynamics work, however this year with no refuelling, teams are forced to qualify on light fuel and 

start the race on heavy fuel. The weight difference of 150Kg makes the car want to sink down on its 

springs. But the spring rates need to be set to cope with one weight and be compromised for all other 

weights. 

Parc Fermé prevents the teams changing spring or adjusting its suspension between qualifying and the 

race, so the teams either accept the compromise or find a legal workaround. It’s the opinion of many, 

but vocally put forward by Martin Whitmarsh that some teams have found a workaround to the ride 

height problem. 

Most notably Red Bull who have qualified on pole twice and shown good race pace, but never appear to 

have a car with excessive ride height. Quite how they do it if in fact they do at all, is not clear. Several 

assumptions have been put forward; an automatic mechanical system, re-pressurising the dampers or 

even cooling the dampers. Any of these methods could be possible and legal, but more of this story will 

unfold over the coming races. 





3.2 Sauber 





3.3 Mercedes GP 

The thin slot joining the two openings makes the double exit legal 

After the changes in Bahrain there were few noticeable differences to the car for Australia. One small 

detail was the team reacted to Ferraris interpretation of the holes allowed in the sidepods and added an 

extra vent near the exhaust port. The rules actually demand a single hole, but as with Ferrari a thin cut 

joins the exhaust outlet to the vent, creating a single opening. 





3.4 Ferrari 

Revised front wing 

Ferrari have introduced a new aero package 

for the F10 in Melbourne. The new front 

wing has notably different endplates. The 

outer small turning vanes are now more 

straight (1) and lower, while the endplate 

itself is more curved towards the outside (3) 

at the rear to better direct airflow away 

from the front tyres. With this new shape, 

the vertical gurney flap (2) has been 

reduced. 

This sported a smaller vane on the footplate and some subtle reshaping of the endplate itself. These 

parts are critical in setting the airflow up around the front tyre; small changes can end up making a big 

difference to the airflow back along the car. 

















3.5 McLaren 

With a revised diffuser at the FIA’s request, McLaren altered their diffuser. By changing the large oval 

hole in the middle of the for a smaller letter box shape opening, the team have met the FIA request for 

specified size of hole. The resulting shape is still an aerodynamic advantage, acting as a slot to accelerate 

the airflow out of the diffuser for more downforce. 





One feature that appeared in practice were new rearview mirrors. In most other teams McLaren tried 

them on the sidepod wings. This takes the turbulence trailing the mirror and moves it away from the rear 

wing. With this set up many drivers commented that rear visibility is worse, but the tiny improvement in 

laptime is something that the teams designers want to use. 

These mirrors were just a test and were removed for qualifying and the race, the teams spokesperson 

commenting the mirrors were “just another one of those aero tweaks that was worth investigating!” 

adding McLaren were “Not sure yet if they'll be making a comeback”. 





Choice of mirror locations for Melbourne 

As McLaren set the car up for first practice, they appear to have new pod wings complete with mirrors. 

This is an aerodynamically benefical location for the mirror, McLaren have been late to try this set up 

out. Drivers do say the rearwards visibility is compromised, although there is a FIA static test for the 

quality of the drivers rear view. Both types of mirrors are mounted with infrared tyre temperature 

cameras, so we can expect to see the team to alternate between the options in free practice. 

Revised front wing endplates 

The stewards in Bahrain requested McLaren change 

the profile of certain parts of their front wing 

endplates (in yellow), to give previous sharp edges a 

safer, more rounded shape. They have thus 

introduced this revised solution in Australia, the 

changes coming in an area that is very important in 

controlling air vortices in front of the front tyres. 





3.6 Red Bull Racing 

With no developments evident, Red Bull continues to the set the pace. However their reliability is still 

suspect as the problems at Vettel’s pitstop lead to the front wheel coming loose, costing the team a race 

win. It appears the wheel nut was not tightened correctly and the wheel was able to move out of its 

normal alignment, causing vibrations as it rubs on the brakes. Eventually the set up failed as Vettel tried 

to brake. 





3.7 Renault 

Appearing with the second front wing in two races, Renault are pushing hard to catch up to the leaders. 

Australia saw the team with a further revised front wing and diffuser. Their new front wing takes the 

shaped cascade of the Bahrain wing and reshaped the vanes around it. Firstly the cascades endplate was 

switched to an aerofoil profile and the vane beneath is curved with an “S” shape. These changes appear 

to be part of the normal iterative process of shaping the front wing. Not just to add downforce but also 

to make the front wing less changes to change is ride height and front steering. 

At the rear the diffuser was slightly modified to meet the FIA’s requirement son starter hole size. In 

Bahrain the hole was relatively small and was a simpler less aerodynamically beneficial shape compared 

to McLarens. To meet the revised rules, the team bonded a small section of carbon fibre in place of the 

previous hole. The new piece filling in the hoe and providing a new regulation sized hole in its place. 

The new version (left drawing) 

features a different version of the top 

flaps small endplate. As well as being 

smaller, it has also been reshaped, and 

is now wing shaped rather than square 

in profile as previously (right drawing). 

Robert Kubica tested this solution 

during Friday practice and both he and 

team mate Vitaly Petrov ran it during 

Melbourne's qualifying and race. 





Bahrain 

The revised front wing’s endplates had a new higher and curvy outer winglet [1] extending up to the 

cascade, which have now a smaller triangular endplate [2] instead of the previous rectangular one. 

Moreover under the cascade there is an additional small outer vertical fin [3] which increases air 

pressure. Finally the under wing vertical fence [4] was repositioned closer to the centre of the wing. All 

the changes aim to redirect airflow management around the frond tyres reducing drag. 

Australia 





A revolutionary double floor 

Now that the diffusers have become so much 

more important, the whole floor of the car has 

a much increased importance towards the 

efficiency of the whole car. Renault haven't 

missed out on that aspect and have added a 

double floor to its R30. 

The team introduced a huge aerodynamic step 

at Sepang, including new sidepod panels, barge 

boards, a modified diffuser and a double 

splitter. Apart from its normal function of 

splitting air from in between the front wheels to 

the left and right sidepod, the new device also 

marks the beginning of a double floor. Right 

above the reference plane is now an open area of about 3cm high. Looking closely at the image you can 

also see that this floor space is extending under the side impact crash structures and under the whole 

width of the sidepod. While it is not perfectly clear yet how this air channel is used, the diffuser update 

that came with it suggests that this is used to feed on of the upper channels of the rear diffuser. 

Just as with the underbody airflow, the stream in this channel will be accelerated due to the expansion 

that happens in the diffuser. As such, air is sucked from the front of the channel, reducing drag at the 

front while increasing downforce at the rear end of the car. 






Another team pushing hard with chassis development is Force India. With their third generation of nose 

cone and diffuser fitted for the Melbourne race weekend. Contrary to previous reports force India’s 

diffuser was not revised for Australia. 

“The FIA did not request any changes to our diffuser before this race.” 

Amongst many other smaller changes the main visual differences were in the new nose cone, with 

sported a wider spaced front wing mounting pylons, which were also deeper in profile to act as turning 

vanes. The rules mandate a specified cross section for these vanes up to a certain height. Above this the 

teams are relatively free to shape these pylons but cannot add other sections of bodywork. 

At the rear the team’s extreme diffuser had another change with the beam wing set up above it. 

Previously two tandem wings were used each with a stepped profile to form the top of the double 

diffuser set up. Now there is a beam wing with a tapered profile, and the forward beam wing truncated 

to simply form the top of the diffuser and not reach out to the rear wing endplates. While the rest of the 

diffuser remained largely the same, the team commented on the influence of the beam wing. 

“The beam wing is actually not that significant in the performance of the rear of the car, but just another 

component in the development of the double diffuser concept, and something that obviously we are 

trying to optimize”. 





Adjustable front wing flaps 

Together with new wider central pillars, which are similar to those on the Mercedes, the Force India 

drivers could use adjustable flaps (red arrow) for the first time in Australia in order to reduce the 

understeer problems they endured in Bahrain. 





3.9 Sauber 

BMW Sauber surprised many people in Australia by unveiling their own version of McLarens F-duct, just 

a race after it was confirmed to be legal. McLarens F-Duct is the snorkel\duct\rear wing set up that 

allows the driver to stall the rear wing on the straight for greater top speed. 

As Sauber’s system is a reaction to McLarens idea and developed long after the chassis was 

homologated, their system places the duct in the sidepod front. Somehow this finds a route into the 

cockpit, allowing the driver to close off the duct with his either knee or hand. Sauber already had a 

complex rear wing with an extra slot moulded into the main plane. As with McLaren, their F-duct also 

routes the airflow through the shark fin to the rear wing. The set up was tested in practice and was 

removed for final practice sessions and the race. As McLaren have taken two years to develop their 

solution, Sauber less mature design needs more time to develop. 

BMW Sauber are the first team to introduce their 

own version of McLaren's innovative F-duct system, 

the speed of introduction helped by the fact that 

they had already tried using a critical part of this 

solution - a rear wing with a slot in it - at last years 

Singapore race. That slot effectively creates a threeelement 

rear wing. However, there are notable 

differences compared to the McLaren system. The 

air directs on to the main section of the wing 

(longer blue arrow and yellow highlighted area), not 

the flap, whilst the 'F-duct' itself (smaller blue 

arrow) is positioned on the sidepods, not on top of 

the chassis like on the McLaren. 





C29 – New sophisticated rear wing for Australia 

Melbourne, front view 

For Melbourne Sauber adopted a totally different and quite sophisticated rear wing concept with slotted 

flaps (1) not bending upwards close to the endplates like they did before and endplates featuring four 

slits instead of two (2). In details the main flap featured an extra slot at its middle zone and an extra slit, 

both to bleed some of the airflow blowing onto the flap profile, a design allowing higher wing attack 

angles without causing the wing to stall. 





Melbourne, rear view 

This wing spec was also tested during winter testing like the one used at Sakhir but it is not a brand new 

design as it was already introduced since last year by Sauber team and can be possibly regarded as a 

beacon for the 2010 F-duct system 





3.10 Toro Rosso 

Few developments have been added to the STR5, for Melbourne a pair of small vanes were added to the 

front bake duct to control the airflow coming off the front wing. These are less complex than ay other 

teams’ solutions, but at least a sign the teams limited resources are reaping developments. 





3.11 Virgin 

In the rush to develop and build a car for the new season, while still trying to be cutting edge in its design 

Virgin Racing have found a fault in their calculations. It transpires their fuel tank is too small; some 

reports place the shortfall at over ten litres. 

This remains the car cannot complete some race distances at full power. Technical Director Nick Wirth 

cited two main regulation changes as leading to the teams’ problem. Firstly, the FIA revised the 

allowable fuel density after the monocoque was signed off. Thus the team needed more volume of fuel 

for the same power output; this needed the tank size to be larger. Secondly the FIA also demanded that 

crash tests are completed with a full tank of fuel; this further robbed the now already too small tank of 

more space as the monocoque was reinforced to accommodate the tests. 

Although the rules demand a homologation process for the monocoque, preventing teams making major 

revisions for performance gain, the rules do allow for the FIA to agree changes for safety and\or 

reliability. It’s under these provisos that the team can make the change. Thus the car will have to go to a 

‘B’ specification, with a slightly longer wheelbase to accommodate the longer tank. This requires a 

revision of the cars aerodynamics to reflect the new longer car. 





3.12 Lotus 

Lotus are pressing on with developments to the T127. For this race the team raced a new rear wing set 

up, taking the upper rear wing & winglet from Bahrain and adding a new beam wing & winglet below 

them. With the car still at an early stage of aero development, the team are seeking more downforce, 

these parts should add some extra load to the rear tyres, but at the cost of some drag on the straights. 

A part that was only tested in Melbourne were a pair of front turning vanes. Normally the Lotus uses two 

small vanes on a “T” shaped central mounting. Their new vanes were larger and mounted individually to 

the lower edge of the nose cone, somewhat similar to Ferraris newer vanes. These were tested on Friday 

but did not appear for the race. 




MALAYSIA – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

4. MALAYSIA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








Following on just one week after the Australian GP, the F1 Circus reconvened for Round 3 at Sepang in 

Malaysia. After two very different races we had hoped that the Sepang circuit would be a comparative 

test of teams on a representative track. However the weather interfered with a straightforward weekend 

and a mixed up qualifying lead to a no clearer picture of how teams actually fare against each other. 

Malaysia did not deliver the same large number of technical developments as the previous two races. 

Most teams ran a small number of the Bahrain cooling openings to cope with the slightly cooler Malaysia 

temperatures. However the large number of race retirements did provide closer access to the cars 

parked around the circuit, to see the elements not normally visible. 

Technical dramas did not unfold around ride height changes as expected. It was a source of debate, but 

continuing denials of any system are being put forward by Red Bull. With the FIA currently happy and no 

team formally protesting this matter is likely to go away and be resolved in a later Technical Working 

Group meeting. 

One technical issue that was bubbling up in Australia and has continued here is the issue of mirrors. The 

teams are increasingly opting for outboard mirrors mounted to the pod wings. While these are 

aerodynamically efficient, they are believed to obstruct a good rear view. As a result the FIA have now 

elected to ban this outboard mounting from the Spanish GP onwards. This will require; Ferrari, Red Bull, 

Mercedes, Williams, Force India and HRT to design new mirror mounting before the Spanish race. This is 

likely to cost the teams less than a tenth in pace. So no major upsets are expected as a result of this 

ruling. 





4.2 McLaren 

Just to reinforce how complex an F1 car is, McLaren made 6 modifications to the MP4-25 this weekend. 

According to team Principal Martin Whitmarsh these changes were worth 0.3s per lap, however it 

appears as if alterations that were not visible were made. We did see the team continue to run Flow-viz 

tests in Friday free practice suggesting some of the changes are underneath the car and not visible. More 

changes are also in the pipeline with Whitmarsh confirming a similar step in pace for China and the 

debut of a new suspension, which allows their ride height to be optimized in between the race and 

qualifying. 





Undernose splitter update at Malaysia 

Launch 

The new redesigned splitter at Sepang features a side additional vent to guide air more effectively under 

the car. 

Malaysia 





4.3 Mercedes 

While still awaiting its major update the team ran another iteration of the sidepod panel around the 

exhaust. As opposed to the slimmer louvered panel in Australia, the Sepang version was enlarged to 

enclose the exhausts. As one of the teams expected to develop an F-duct, this might be ready for China, 

but team Principal Ross Brawn thought the Spanish GP was a more likely debut. 

Revised rear bodywork 

Here you can see how Mercedes have evolved the bodywork around the MGP-W01's exhausts. In 

Melbourne (see inset) there was an additional gill linked to the exhaust opening (highlighted in blue), 

which respected the single-opening rule. In Sepang they have modified the bodywork (see main drawing) 

to create a wider opening around the exhaust to aid cooling. The team have also opened two small 

windows at the point where the bodywork meets the car's floor (highlighted in blue). 





4.4 Red Bull 

Red Bull use the exhaust to blow in the diffuser via a small opening (yellow) for more downforce. 

Again the team set the pace and finally reliability was beaten to achieve their seasons first race win. No 

obvious developments appeared on the RB6, there were small revisions to the wheels and hubs to 

prevent a repeat of the failure that lead to Vettel’s retirement in Australia. This involved the detailed 

revisions to the drive pegs that are fixed into the wheel and the corresponding holes in the axle. It is the 

fretting and eventual shearing of these drive pegs that prevented Vettel’s left front brake working in 

Australia, as the wheel was no longer engaged to the hub and brakes. 

We can at last clearly see the way the low line exhaust blows over the diffuser. Cleverly Adrian Newey 

has opened up a window in the diffuser to allow some of the high speed exhaust gases to flow through 

the upper deck of the diffuser. This improves flow through the diffuser leading to more downforce. By 

blowing the exhaust along the bodywork and through the window into the diffuser, Newey has offset 

some of the sensitivity that this set up would have created, if he had exited the exhaust directly into the 

diffuser. Which would then have been sensitive to throttle position and engine revs. This solution may be 

ripe for copying by other teams as they prepare major upgrade during the next phase in the season. 





Front brake-rim attachment 

In both the first two races Red Bull suffered problems with their front wheel upright's brake-rim 

attachment - on Friday morning in Bahrain on Vettel's car, and on his again in Melbourne when the frontleft 

wheel came loose. For Malaysia the team have worked hard to avoid the problem, checking the 

assembly of the components (hub, wheel nut and rim) after nearly every run. As you can see in the 

drawing, Red Bull don't have the locking pins (arrow) in the hub plate but instead in the inside of the rim. 





4.5 Ferrari 

Ferrari came with two detail revisions to the F10, firstly the team fitted a new section to the floor ahead 

of the rear wheels. This provided a slot to take airflow from above to below the floor, just ahead of the 

front tyres. McLaren have had a similar part fitted to the car since the last winter tests. This is added to 

the already complex treatment of the floor around the rear tyre. Ferrari has a serrated section leading to 

a Red Bull-like upwards section of curved floor. All these details seek to improve flow around the wheel 

and sealing the low pressure within the diffuser. This slot was not fitted for the race. 

Secondly Alonso had a new windshield fitted to his car. Rather than the usual vertical plate of seethrough 

plastic, he had a moulded angled screen fitted to the top of the chassis. This probably helped 

Alonso from being buffeted on Malaysia’s high speed straights. 

New floor 

Ferrari tested a new floor in Malaysia that included an opening in front of the rear tyres, something only 

McLaren have had from the beginning of the season. Its purpose is to feed air to the side channel of the 

rear diffuser in order to increase its efficiency. This solution was taken off the Ferrari on Saturday at 

Sepang, but we will probably see it again in China. The team also introduced cooling vanes beside the 

cockpit due to the hot conditions, but again these were not used on Saturday. 





Forthcoming ban on outboard mirrors 

Three races into the season the FIA have declared outboard mirrors too dangerous and have banned 

them. The ban was to come in at the forthcoming Chinese Grand Prix, but after the teams complained of 

time constraints, it will instead be introduced from May's Spanish race. Ferrari were the first team to 

place their mirrors on the extremities of their car's sidepods back in 2006 (see drawing). Since then 

several teams have designed similar solutions, and currently six - Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, BMW 

Sauber, Force India and HRT - are using mirrors attached to the vertical turning vanes in front of the 

sidepods. Mirrors don't usually have a good aerodynamic shape, but by putting them in the flow of air 

coming from the front tyres - an area already disturbed by drag - their negative influence is reduced. The 

difference they make is thought to be approximately half of one-tenth of a second per lap. 









4.6 Renault 

New Pod wings and bargeboard for Renault in Malaysia 

Again we saw Renault as the best of the midfield teams and one which brings developments on a race by 

race basis. For Malaysia the team brought new pod wings and bargeboards. These are a smaller gain 

than those found with the new front and rear wings in Australia. The top section of pod wing is similar to 

the old design, but the lower section curved inwards over the floor, taking a line close to that of the 

undercut in the sidepods. Allied to the new bargeboard just inboard of the pod wing these parts aims are 

twofold; firstly the flow around the side of the car, but probably more importantly they alter the 

pressure distribution under the car, improving downforce from the diffuser. 





A huge diffuser (yellow) is fed by a large opening under the floor aided by two longitudinal flaps. 

Just as in Australia, it was Petrov’s retirement that allowed the clearest views yet of the Renault complex 

diffuser. Its never been clear since the Bahrain diffuser update, what the function was of the of two 

upper diffuser exits, equally shots of Petrov’s car being craned showed a longitudinal slot arrangement 

under the car. It is now clear that the team have designed a diffuser with a split upper deck, effectively 

making two pairs of exit on each side of the car above the normal diffuser. 

This is akin to McLaren or Force India’s diffuser. As they seek to create the largest diffuser outlet, with 

the steepest possible angle within the confines of the bodywork rules. So we can see two exits one 

above and one below the beam wing, these are fed by a large opening under the car. This opening starts 

between the engine and gearbox and creates such a large inlet, that the team have added this 

longitudinal flap in the resulting hole to manage airflow up into the diffuser. To my knowledge this 

approach is unique in F1 and must be a part of the Renaults early season pace. 









Fire extinguisher powder is a great detail highlighter! Normally the inside of the diffusers is just black and difficult to see what's going on. That 

Renault rear end detailing is very involved. 









R30 – new sidepod panels and turning vanes since Malaysia 

pre-Malaysia. 

The new panels raced since Sepang had their lower 

zone inclined towards the inner. Furthermore the 

floor turnings vanes where the panel is mounted 

on is now much slimmer than before. These 

changes offer a different airflow management 

around the sidepod bottoms, more suitable for the 

R30. 

Malaysia 





A closer look at the splitter appeared in Sepang... 





4.7 Lotus 

Developments at Lotus included a second test of the sharkfin rear bodywork. Mike Gascoyne told 

automoto365.com “the sharkfin is an ongoing development, but we presently have no plans to race it“. 

Then explaining its use he added “It is intended to help rear downforce in yaw”. 

Mikes understanding of the device is that it straighten the airflow to the rear wing in high speed corners. 

Whereas other teams feel it simply add some stability to the rear into corners. 

Gascoyne also added that the team have new diffusers for this weekend, but they must be a subtle 

reworking of the old one, as outwardly they are little different. The team are still on schedule for major 

update at the Spanish GP. 






Modified exhaust 

To improve the cooling of the Toro Rosso in Malaysia's high temperatures, the team have modified the 

bodywork around the exhausts. Unlike the exhaust used in Melbourne (see inset), the exhaust opening is 

no longer visible from the side (see main drawing). This solution was also used in Bahrain. 




CHINA – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

5. CHINA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








Shanghai hosted the fourth grand prix of the year and the third race interrupted by rain. Much like 

Bahrain, China's circuit is a modern layout with few fast turns and instead being dominated by long 

straights and slow complexes. Having the longest straight in F1, several teams unsurprisingly chose to 

test their speed boosting F-duct rear wings at this race. But only Mercedes elected to run their wing in 

the race. 





5.2 Ferrari 

A new vane was added to the splitter to control underbody airflow 

As widely predicted Ferrari brought their initial development of McLaren’s F-duct to Shanghai. It was run 

in Friday practice as a test of the components, however not all of the system was installed for the test. 

So this was just an evaluation of the rear wing element and top bodywork. Thus Ferrari had an inlet on 

top of the char fin to direct airflow into the rear wing flap. We can expect to see the full system tested in 

Barcelona. 

Ferrari also brought several changes to their car for China, all focused at improving the diffusers 

performance. 

Changes start at the front where the splitter under the raised nose was altered to a more complex vaned 

arrangement. The splitter acts to direct airflow both above and below the floor, but the primary effect is 

affecting the flow passing along the stepped underfloor before reaching the diffuser. 

By adding a vane to the side of the splitter, the flow can that passes along the step can be better 

controlled. Equally the diffuser was altered with the section that splits the upper and lower decks and 

the fences either side of it being subtly changed. Above this area a ducted winglet was added above the 

crash structure, as the vent for the gearbox oil cooler exits inside the duct, its purpose was probably to 

improve airflow out of the oil cooler. 













Blown rear wing 

In the first practice in China, Ferrari unveiled their new rear wing, which features a blown flap in a similar 

manner to McLaren. Mclaren have infamously produced the F-Duct which uses a duct controlled by the 

driver to alter airflow around the rear wing to stall it at high speed to gain more top speed. Is this an F- 

Duct as used by McLaren, may be not. 

Unlike the McLaren and Saubers set ups, the Ferrari solution does not appear to have the driver 

interacting with the duct. Instead the wing is fed with airflow coming from an inlet high up on the engine 

cover, well away from the drivers reach. It is possible that the there is additional ducting inside the car 

that does allow the driver to control airflow through the duct. But so far no signs of a driver controlled 

inlet around the cockpit are evident. It could be Ferraris set up uses pure aerodynamics to affect the 

duct, by choking at high speed (safely well above the maximum corner speed). 

Latest: Alonso to Autosport.com ”I had nothing inside the cockpit because the system is not complete. 

We tested the engine cover to compare it with the standard one. I didn’t notice anything. I guess there 

will some new numbers from an aero point of view.” 





Although Ferrari's version of McLaren's rear aero package doesn't yet feature an interpretation of the 

MP4-25's driver-controlled F-duct system, most of the new F10 components are very similar to the 

British team's solution. Not only is air directed on to the rear wing's flap, which features a slot, but it also 

flows on to the top of the diffuser's leading edge via a pipe (see red arrow). Fernando Alonso tested this 

solution during Friday practice for the Chinese Grand Prix. 









The under nose vanes were revised further at China, having now a more roundy lower front section to 

smoothen the airflow passing inside the vanes tunnel towards the rear. 

Bahrain 

China 

















Undernose splitter update at China 

pre-China 

The F10 raced a redesigned floor-splitter at Sinopec which features a side additional vent (in yellow, 

inspired by Renault) to guide air more effectively under the car. 

China 





5.3 Red Bull 

All new turning vanes (yellow) were races as well as a new front wing flap and endplate 

A complete new front aero set up was introduced at Shanghai; a new front wing, endplates and turning 

vanes, as well as new sidepod fins. Having used a complex multi section front wing since the RB5 was 

launched last year, the new wing is far more straightforward. A large single element flap is now used and 

allied to new endplates that feature a large cut out ion their sides to improve airflow around the front 

wheel. 

Attached to the nose cone were a pair of turning vanes, as Red Bull run such a high nose tip and raised 

chassis, this leaves a lot of space above the controlled zone low down under the nose. So Red bull have 

been able to fit very large vanes to the area to direct airflow around the centre of the car. Red Bulls head 

of race engineering Ian Morgan xxclusively told: “We decided it would provide aerodynamic 

improvement to the car, They are not circuit specific and are part of our ongoing development 

programme”. 

All of these changes may well have an influence on airflow under the car, so there is possibly some 

changes the floor and diffuser, but Red Bull said they were happy to keep us guessing if any changes had 

been made. But the team did add that other changes had been made and said 

“We have made some minor mechanical changes, but the main focus has been on the aerodynamics”. 





Red Bull RB6 – exhaust development from launch to China 

Launch – periscope exhausts 

Red Bull was the first team to re-introduce the Exhaust Blown Diffuser system in modern Formula 1. 

Initially the RB6 was launched with periscope exhausts blowing just above the rear suspension’s 

wishbones. Later during winter testing the exhausts were repositioned close to the floor and under the 

suspension wishbones in an attempt to energize the diffuser causing it to produce more downforce. 





Winter testing – fake exhausts 

The team tried to keep the new floor exhausts unnoticed by placing fake exhaust heat covers at the 

former upper position. Moreover the additional vertical floor fence which was tested also, made the 

exhaust observation even more difficult. 





Bahrain 

At Bahrain the fake exhausts were removed while later at China the engine cover’s rear part was revised. 

This black coloured new part can be separated from the rest engine cover and the change was triggered 

by the mechanics need to reach faster and easier the new floor exhaust internal area. 

China 





Front aero update 

Red Bull introduced a modified front 

wing in China. Although it featured 

an altered flap, the most interesting 

change was the addition of two 

turning vanes under the RB6's nose 

(see red arrow). The vanes are similar 

in style to those run by Toyota last 

year, and they also feature on this 

year's Ferrari F10. Sebastian Vettel 

tested the new front wing on Friday, 

but by Saturday Mark Webber was 

also running with it. 

RB6 raced a modified front wing in China with the following changes to take place : 

1.New inner flap profile, having now a far simpler form. 

2.New planes fasteners 

3.The area where the principle flap meets the endplatehas been revised having now less volume and 

new shape, probably to separate better the flow of air entering the two venturi channels (pointed by a 

and b notes) under the wing. 





Additional exhaust duct 

In China Red Bull introduced a small vertical duct (see red arrow) to the rear of the RB6. This has been 

designed to prevent the hot air from the exhaust blowing onto the rear tyres and to better direct the air 

towards the diffuser's side channel. 





5.4 Williams 

Both an F-duct and small changes were brought to the FW32 this weekend. Their F-duct was only tried 

briefly on one car Saturday morning. In the Williams system the driver controls a duct which passes to 

the right of his seat up past the padded head restraint to the shark fin. The duct then feeds the slot into 

he back face of the wing to stall the airflow when the driver engages the system on the straight. 

Technical director Sam Michael said. 

"We tested a stalling rear wing on Rubens’ car during the morning practice session, from which we 

collected some useful data, but it's early R&D at this stage so we have taken the decision not to race it 

this weekend. 

However being such a complete system we might possibly see the system raced in Spain. 

Other changes consisted of a new front wing. Largely following the same format as the previous wing, 

the endplate hassle on for some small alterations. This now features several lips to aid airflow around 

the front wheel. 





5.5 Mercedes 

The third of the F-duct debuts was the Mercedes system. As expected the team was secretive about its 

design, so we are not clear if the arrangement so complete or like Ferrari this was a preparatory test of 

the some of the components. As we are expecting a major change to the MGP W01 for the next race, it 

might be that the complete F-duct needs components not as yet introduced to the car. 

What we can see is that the rear wing flap gets its air feed from his main plane of the rear wing; this is 

provided by a large hollow fin fitted between the two elements into his middle of the wing. The hollow 

flap features two simple slots made into the back face of the element. 

McLaren and Ferrari use curved slots to tailor the stall effect to suit the local airflow, which varies across 

the span of the wing. Mercedes may have a clever way to route the airflow front he cockpit to the rear 

wing, but this is not yet evident, it might be hidden in the rear wing endplates, but its most likely we will 

see the full system explained in Barcelona. 

Rumours abound as to what changes Mercedes are planing to their car for the next race. It’s clear the 

team do not have the rearward weight and aero bias the Bridgestone tyres need. This problem was 

underlined by the chronic lack of traction and rear tyre wear experienced by Michael Schumacher’s car. 

Somehow Rosberg is able to get a good performance from the car, but it is still handicapped by its 

fundamental layout. 

With restrictions on introducing new crash structures and monocoques, Mercedes are limited to gearbox 

and suspension changes to alter the cars inherent weight distribution. Either having to push the front or 

rear wheels forward. This can be done with either new wishbones or at the rear a shorter gearbox to 

bring the engines mass towards the rear wheels. Either solution will have a major effect not he cars 

aerodynamics so this will need to be revised to accommodate the changes. 

Equally the team still needs to bring a major step the cars aero, as the main elements are still largely 

based on the 2009 Brawn car. Mercedes have a lot to do over the next three weeks to prepare a near "Bspec" 

car for Spain. 





Modified rear wing 

Mercedes have introduced a simpler, and more experimental version of McLaren's current rear wing 

solution. Like on the Ferrari, there isn't an F-duct, and the air doesn't flow inside the engine cover fin. 

Two small openings (1) feed airflow through an aero channel to two slots on the back of the flap (2). The 

system has been tested by both drivers and is controlled by pressure sensors on both surfaces of the 

wing. 





5.6 Renault 

Several developments were brought Shanghai, with a new front wing and floor. The floor wasn’t tested 

while the front wing, which features revised vanes on the endplate was tried but the team elected not to 

race the development. 

R30, front wing – small revision at China 

At China an inner horizontal floor 

extension was made in order to channel 

air more efficiently under the wing and 

close to the endplates 










Toro Rossos upright failed near the top, taking with it the top wishbone, steering arm and tether 

One of the most startling images of the weekend was the double front suspension failure on the Toro 

Rosso in Fridays practice session. The STR5 suffered a failure to the front upright, which lead the same 

failure on the opposite upright. An upright is the component that links the wishbones, pushrod and 

steering to the front wheel via the stub axle. 

It also mounts the brakes so not just the suspension forces, but also the immense braking forces are fed 

through this small metal component. Being highly stressed teams work hard to use computer simulation 

to predict the loads and ensure the finished metal components quality. 

In Toro Rossos case the upright was from a new batch and untested on track. When the upright failed 

near the top wishbone mount, the forces acting on the wheel immediately ripped the upright from the 

carbon fibre wishbones, this in turn lead the same failure on the side leaving Buemi without any front 

wheels. It was unfortunate that the failure occurred on the upright at the point below where the wheel 

restraining tether is connected to the upright, having passed from the chassis through the top wishbone. 

Thus the wheels were no longer restrained by the tether and flew off, one of which landed outside the 

catch fencing in a public area, thankfully no one was struck the errant wheel. 






A race before the ban Force India introduced new inboard mirror 

Pre-empting the ban on outboard mirrors the team already had revised bodywork for China. Truncating 

the sidepod fin and adding a mirror mounted on a short post to the vortex generators already fitted to 

the cockpit sides. 




SPAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

6. SPAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








Five races into the season and we finally have a Grand Prix held near the teams bases, run on a 

representative track and in good weather. Round 5 of the 2010 championship was held at the circuit de 

Cataluña in Spain. 

Coming three weeks after the Chinese race and the Icelandic Ash cloud not withstanding, the teams 

returned the cars to their respective factories for the first time since they departed for Bahrain. 

Therefore Barcelona was the race with the most technical changes so far; major layout changes for two 

teams, significant aero upgrades for other teams and a host of smaller updates up and down the grid. 

With its numerous long and fast turns, long straight and lack of slow complexes, Barcelona is a track that 

really tests the chassis. In particular the track is one that rewards aerodynamic efficiency, as it needs lots 

of downforce for the fast turns, but the long straight will hurt teams running an excess of drag. 

Equally the long straight suits cars with powerful engines, but that is a secondary demand, as we saw 

Red Bull with their power deficit to Mercedes still produce the quickest laptime. Braking for the first turn 

also tests brakes and Barcelona's track surface is also quite abrasive making it hard on tyres. Barcelona 

tests nearly every facet of a formula1 car, part of the reason it is so popular for testing. 





6.2 Red Bull 

Red Bull further bolstered their early season pace with an aero upgrade in addition to the major changes 

introduced in China. In Spain this consisted of a new front splitter, revised floor and changes around the 

exhaust area. Additionally the team had their new wing mirrors, as the old ones were mounted 

outboard. Their step up in pace is probably attributable to the new underfloor changes. Starting with the 

splitter the airflow is revised both under and over the floor, with the section of floor ahead of the rear 

wheels now sporting a slot, similar to McLarens and Ferrari solution. While just inboard of this area the 

panelling around the exhaust has been smoothed out to improve the route of the exhaust gasses into 

the diffuser. 

Many observers are pointing to the exhaust driven diffuser as a key to the team pace, although the cars 

generally benign aerodynamics suiting both qualifying and race conditions are as bigger factor. Yet still 

these do require a suspension system that allows good control of the floors attitude, suggesting Red bull 

do have innovations in this area that are not yet understood. 





RB6, front wing – minor change for Spain 

Minor changes to the gurney tab located at the trailing edge of the second plane for Spain. 





6.3 Mercedes 

Moving the wheels forward (yellow) was the least complex option for Mercedes weight distribution 

problem 

Mercedes introduced this innovative roll structure and engine air inlet 

After suffering since its launch with a forwards aero\weight bias, Mercedes finally had the upgrade to 

resolve the W01 of its intrinsic problems. Having had too much load on the front tyres, the car had 





fought excessive understeer from overloaded front tyres and excessive rear tyre wear through lack of 

traction at the back wheels. 

They have chosen to do this by the simplest method of shifting the front wheels forwards relative to the 

chassis. While not as complex as new gearboxes or monocoques, this does involve a lot of other changes 

to the car as their performance or the regulations demand it. Both the front wing and splitter need to 

move forwards as the regulations use the front axle as a datum for their position. Then the front wing 

pillars, bargeboards, pod fins and other aerodynamic parts need to accommodate the new front wheel 

position. 

It’s the longer splitter that gives way most of the secrets of the wheelbase change. Firstly, the previously 

vertical mount to support the front edge of the splitter is now angled forwards as it maintains the same 

upper mounting to the monocoque, but now it has to reach forwards to steady the floor. This suggests 

the wheelbase shift is in the region of 5cm and not the 10cm suggested by some media. Secondly the 

splitter used to be a thick rectangular section to house the large slab of ballast, now the splitter is a thin 

section, with the tungsten weights now limited to its central section. 

If it’s the new wheelbase that improved the Mercedes form, it was the revised roll structure that caught 

every ones attention. An evolution of the previous set up, with a tall central pillar and the engine air 

inlets formed either side of the pillar. As its only the central fin that is structural and subject to crash 

tests, the side scoops can be changed without having to crash test and re-homologate the monocoque. 

so Mercedes have lowered the inlet snorkel and set it back from the leading edge of the pillar, creating a 

long blade like fin that merges into the tail fin of the engine cover. 

There will be two reasons for doing this, firstly improving the airflow to the rear wing due to the reduced 

cross section ahead of it. But also for engine performance, this year with the longer fuel tanks teams 

have had to make the snorkel feeding the air-box longer. There may be a horsepower benefit in having 

shorter inlets. The two inlets and tail fin are now part of the air-box and removed as one piece. This 

complex piece of bodywork bolts both the engine cover and to the inlet tray where the air-filter sits. All 

other teams have separate air-boxes sitting inside the engine cover. 





Revised airbox and roll structure 

At the MGP W01's pre-season launch it became clear team principal Ross Brawn had managed to avoid 

making its airbox design a structural part of the car's rollover protection - and was thus not hamstrung 

on future developments by the FIA's rules which restrict chassis changes (bottom left inset, blue arrow). 

Even before the season opener in Bahrain the team made a revision (top left inset, blue arrow). In Spain, 

however, a dramatic change to the shape of the airbox (main picture) has been introduced, with its 

intakes lower and further back. The rollover structure now has a narrow, knife-shaped leading edge. All 

this should help clean up airflow over the engine cover and help boost the performance of the car's 

'blown' rear wing. 









Longer wheelbase 

Mercedes have lengthened the wheelbase of the MGP W01 by approximately five centimetres. They 

have done this by angling the suspension's front wishbones differently. They have also moved the front 

wing forward, thus keeping the same gap between wing and tyre as required by the regulations. This 

modification has altered the car's weight distribution, which should help reduce the chronic understeer 

seen during the opening four races. 





6.4 McLaren 

McLarens new rear wing has three slots, both the usual slot, plus the blown and F-duct slots (arrowed), 

as well as a new section within the diffuser (Yellow) 





A raft of changes were applied the MP4-25 for Spain. The most influential and visible of these, were the 

new front wing endplate rear wing and a new add-on to the diffuser. At the front the endplate is the 

team’s second iteration this year and somewhere between the complex multi vaned arrangement on the 

launch car and the simpler vented version used since Bahrain. Now the endplate features three distinct 

vents taking airflow from the outside to the inside, helping guide the airflow around the front tyre. 

At the rear the F-duct rear wing has been revised with a new main plane and flap. In a similar set up to 

that used in Monaco last year the main plane has its own narrow inlet at the front which feeds a full 

width slot at the back of the wing. This is not related to the F-duct, as the blown slot is not driver 

actuated, instead the extra slot allows the rear wing to be steeper without stalling, creating more 

downforce. Wit the revised main plane the flap has had to be altered with the f-ducts slot now 

positioned further up the wings rear surface. It is this narrower slot that is blown to stall the wing, by the 

drivers leg closing the f-duct. 

Below all this the diffuser has taken a new shape in the middle section with the curved profile between 

the upper and lower deck. Sitting in the exit of the upper deck is two element flap and a panel to 

streamline the air passing up under the tail lamp. 






McLaren's new aero package for Spain 

includes a wider rear diffuser inspired by 

Renault's solution and this new front wing, 

which features different endplates, split 

into two sections. Despite the revisions, 

the wing itself retains four element 

profiles. 

China 

Spain 

At Catalunya the new endplates featured a modified double vented combo, with the second one to be 

taller and its opening divided by a horizontal splitter, in an attempt to improve airflow management 

around the front tyres and to increase the quantity of air passing under the car. Moreover the upper 

triangular fin is now flatter and shorter and the endplates rear part lost their vertical boxy profile having 

now a round and protruding profile to divert airflow away from the tyres frontal surface. Lastly the 

points adjustment to the wing angle attack had also been relocated alongside with the flap movable 

mechanism which is housed inside the endplate. 





Diffuser revisions for Spain 

China 

The new diffuser ala “Renault“ style which was deployed at Catalunya had a completely new inner holed 

structure, an additional winglet under the light to aid air extraction from under the car, a new shaped 

central zone and additional central flaps. 

Spain 





6.5 Ferrari 

Compromised by their monocoque Ferrari have managed to get the F-duct control near the drivers left 

hand. 

As with most team teams Ferrari had a number of small changes, but most importantly they brought 

their full F-Duct rear wing for the first time. Following the same principal as McLarens version, the driver 

controls airflow through a duct, that feeds back to and stalls the rear wing, increasing top speed. 

However Ferraris system was designed after the monocoque was homologated, so they have had to 

compromise on its installation. Air enters the F-duct via an inlet in the top of the engine cover, this 

passes down the side of the cockpit surround and into the cockpit, exiting to the left of the steering 

wheel. when left open, the duct blows air into the cockpit. However when the driver presses the back of 

his specially gloved hand against the rubber outlet, the airflow instead passes back to the rear wing slot 

and stalls the wing, reducing drag and downforce for more top speed. In Ferraris case they appear to 

split the duct feeding back to the rear downwards towards the gearbox. There are suggestions Ferrari 

also stall their diffuser with this feed. Although the routing of the duct down to the underfloor would be 

tortuous and the gains from stalling a low drag diffuser would be less effective than stalling the rear 

wing. 





The F-Duct switch 





The flap control 





Spanish GP engine specification 

Ferrari introduced a new engine spec in Spain; this was in order to resolve a problem with the pneumatic 

valve system. This raises two points; why are they allowed to change a frozen engine specification and 

what are the pneumatic valves? 

Since the end of 2006 F1 engine specs have been frozen, this was a move to further reduce the costs for 

the engine suppliers. It was introduced even after stringent standard engine specifications and limited 

engines over season were introduced. Since the first homologation of the engines, teams have been 

allowed to retune the engine for different RPM limits and also to accommodate KERS. Offsetting this has 

been the increase to the parts covered by the specification freeze. 

Teams are however allowed to make changes to the their engines for reliability reasons, this applies both 

to resolving issues that have ‘blown up’ engines, as well as impending failures. To request a change, 

teams have to apply to the FIA outlining the reason for the change and the resulting changes. This 

information is passed around the other engine suppliers, this transparency helps to reduce excessive 

changes and reassures teams what their rivals might or might not be getting up to. 

While the fundamental reason for this dispensation is to aid teams with reliability problems, any 

‘reliability’ change could also bring a performance gain. This could be either as a direct result of the 

‘reliability’ change i.e. lighter part making more power, or as a secondary result, i.e. new valve seat 

material allows a different fuel for more power. Clearly any possible advantage will be taken by the 

manufacturers when making changes to the engine. 

Ferrari had an issue with leaking pneumatic valves; this meant the car may not be able to last a full race 

distance without the system being topped up. Thus Ferrari asked for and gained approval to make 

alterations to their valve system to resolve the problem. 





Pneumatic valves are universal in F1 and have been for decades, first introduced by Renault on their V6 

turbo engine, they replicate the effect of valve spring in closing the poppet valves in the cylinder head. 

Where as a valve spring could do the job, they are more difficult to manufacture to cope with ever higher 

RPMs. Although F1 engines are now limited to 18,000rpm, these pneumatic valves have worked on 

engines revving to over 20,000rpm. Metal coiled valve springs, suffer from harmonic and fatigue 

problems at higher revs. While still resolvable, these issues are simply cured with a switch to a 

pneumatic valve return system (PVRS). Instead of a valve being closed against the cam by a coil spring sat 

in a pocket in the head, the pocket is sealed by a cap and the resulting closed cylinder pressurised with 

nitrogen gas creating an airspirng. Of course the PVRS set up can lose pressure and F1 cars run with small 

nitrogen cylinder housed in the sidepod to keep the system pressurised. Sometimes when excessive 

leaking occurs, the car is topped up at a pitstop by a mechanic with a hand held gas cylinder. In Ferraris 

case their problem was that their system had always ‘leaked’ to some degree, but with a ban on the 

longer fuel stops, pit stops are now too short for effective repressurising. Thus they applied to have their 

system altered. It is understood that the Ferrari solution takes some lessons from the Toyota teams’ 

experience, possibly through the new Ferrari Engine Head Luca Marmorini, who also ran Toyotas F1 

engine operation until the end of 2008. A different PVRS set up, with different seals and revised oil 

formulation to aid sealing, the engine is now believed to be more powerful by some 12 horse power. 

Quite a gain from a change in this era of frozen specification. 





6.6 Virgin 

Virgin had a longer monocoque (arrowed) and married it to a new shark fin engine cover 

Even though the team knew at an early stage, that their cars fuel tank would not last an entire race at 

full power. The Virgin team have only managed to get one new car ready for Spain. This highlights the 

huge task in designing and building a new monocoque and the related aerodynamics and repackaging 

the components around the back of the chassis. Thus Virgin have had to lengthen the car to fit in larger 

fuel tank into a longer monocoque. As well as the new tub, Virgin brought a new shark fin engine cover 

and revised front wing cascades. 





6.7 Lotus 

While their rivals have either stood still or had to reengineer their cars, Lotus were able to bring a major 

upgrade to the T127 for Spain. This is both a mechanical and aero upgrade, the suspension now sports 

Inerters (J-Dampers) and most of the bodywork has been revised. 

Inerters were brought into F1 by McLaren in 2005 and their presence predates the Renault Mass 

Dampers, although they are both solutions to the same issue. Aiming to offset the hysteresis effect of 

Rubber pneumatic tyres have on the contact patch. The unequal damping of the tyres can work against 

the suspension and create load variations between the tyre and road. Inerters are fitted tot eh 

suspension like a heave damper and offset this effect. Inside an Inerter there is a mass that spins on a 

threaded rod and operates dependant on the movement of the suspension, this absorbed the loaded put 

through the suspension by the tyre to create more consistent contact patch loads. Lotus had been 

testing Inerters on a seven post rig in the weeks after China to gain more mechanical grip. 

Meanwhile the aerodynamics have been updates with a totally new front wing plus revisions to the 

diffuser. The front wing sports a more elegant three element set up and endplates with integrated 

cascades. At the rear the diffuser has gained a pair of extra fences. The front wing itself was expected to 

be worth 0.5s, while the teams other developments added yet more speed to the car. 

Lotus introduce simplified front wing 

Sometimes in Formula One it doesn't have to be complicated. For many it appeared like the Lotus T127 

was an underdeveloped car with only the front wing having enjoyed some thorough development. In 

their Spanish update however, the team are running a much simpler front wing, which apparently proves 

useful for the drivers. 

While the previous front wing endplate had several vertical panels attached to each other with small 

winglets, the new version is a basic endplate, a flat floor panel in yellow and a small guiding vane fixed 

on top of that. The wing itself is a more fluent design as the vertical separator was removed. The stacked 

panel is now smaller and resembles a Williams design as it is held up solely by its connection on the end 

plate. It lacks any other support pillar. 





6.8 Renault 

Renault brought another update to their front wing, with a new flap arrangement. The inner ends of the 

flaps now longer meet the main plane instead they form a point. The wing was tested but not raced, as 

was the floor also tested in China, which still appears not to be significant gain over the current race 

specification. 

Back to inboard mirrors, but are they any better? 

As of the Spanish GP, outboard mirrors attached to the sidepod panels are banned by the FIA. The design 

was introduced by Ferrari year back but have eventually found unsafe. It was argued that with the wide 

position, drivers had to rotate their head to get a clear look, while the position of the mirrors themselves 

could reduce visibility and increase the blind spot, an important cause for collisions. 

The sudden ban however raises questions as to why the governing body have not acted sooner. It was 

obvious that as soon as teams started to copy Ferrari, some incidents could have been avoided with the 

traditional, inboard mirror positions. And since they could have known, why not ban them before the 

start of the season, when regulations are still being set up. 

Anyway, we're back to good old regular mirrors, but the image taken from the rear of this year's Renault 

shows there may still be issues to resolve. Even though there is a mandatory test to check if drivers can 

see behind their car, Renault's current mirror position somehow voids the minimum dimension 

specification of mirrors. Nearly half of the sight area is shaded by the car's shoulder bodywork. 

As discussions are now well underway to set rules for next year, it could be a good time to improve the 

rear visibility test. 





R30 – under nose fences update at Spain 

pre-Spain 

The fences under the nose cone, which create an air channel under the car, were revised at Spain having 

now a more sophisticated shape to improve front aerodynamic efficiency. 

Spain 





Renault R30 rear suspension/gearbox details Barcelona race 





6.9 Williams 

Their rivals Williams had a major upgrade, comprising a new diffuser which required a new gearbox 

casting. Also the sidepods had new inlets, in particular the left hand inlets being much smaller and “r” 

shaped compared to the previously raced version. The asymmetric inlets highlight that the sidepods 

contain different coolers, often the right-hand sidepod contains both water and oil coolers thus needs to 

airflow in and out of the sidepod. While teams often have different outlet sizes, its rare for the inlets to 

be different left to right. 

FW32 – rear bodywork and exhausts details from launch to Spain 

The rear bodywork of the car was slightly modified at Bahrain and specially the exhausts zone. At hot 

Sakhir’s weather conditions asymmetric exhaust outlets were used with the left one to be larger to 

satisfy the car cooling needs. 

On the contrary at cooler Melbourne a symmetric and simpler configuration was used to reduce drag 

production. 





Melbourne 

At Malaysia, China and Spain the team reverted back to the asymmetric exhaust outlets configuration 

already used at Sakhir. 

Bahrain, Sepang, China, Catalunya 





FW32 – front wing updates at Spain 

The front wing used at Spain had the rear vertical part of the endplate revised and furthermore there 

was an additional small fin (acting as a vortex generator) at the rear endplate top section to improve 

airflow management close to the front wheels. 






Rear End Update 

New beam wings and enlarged cooling outlets 

Continuing their current theme of innovation Force India (FI) produced a revised rear end for the VJM03 

in the latter days of the Barcelona test. This included a revised beam wing set up and enlarged cooling 

outlets. 

Originally it appears that the FI used a very tall diffuser and a split rear beam wing. In Actual fact the car 

used a lower diffuser, but what appears to be the top section of diffuser was a second full width beam 

wing, sat ahead of the split one. Although the rules demand ‘one closed section’ (i.e. one element) for 

the area containing the beam wing, there is a free zone for bodywork sat ahead of it. Last year both 

Ferrari and Toyota exploited this area for a second beam wing sat in tandem ahead of the other one. 

With the update there are now two full width beam wings, the rearward one no longer split but instead 

hooking up over the rear crash structure. However the forward beam wing remains (yellow) and sits in a 

cascade with the diffuser, to create a high expansion ratio diffuser by effectively making a taller exit 

(light grey). Also aiding the diffuser exit are a pair of fins attached the outside faces of the diffuser and 

stack of winglets affixed the rear brake ducts. 





Allied to the diffuser changes the hump enclosing the rear of the sidepods around the gearbox was cut 

open to allow for greater cooling in the opening flyaway races. Allied to the rear end of the coke bottle 

shape, the exhaust outlets and a gaps made for the suspension that allow hot air to escape the sidepods 

(all shown dark grey). 



MONACO – TECHNICAL REVIEW 


Ferrari F60 

7. MONACO – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








From the high speed sweeps of Barcelona, F1 slowed down for its annual race around the streets of 

Monte Carlo. Coming just one week after Spain, the teams had little time to develop new parts other 

than those specifically required for Monaco. 

Indeed few teams even added new high-downforce aero parts; such are the limitations of the bodywork 

rules since 2009. With fewer new parts, we managed to get the chance to examine some of the new 

many parts introduced in Barcelona because close proximity to the cars and high vantage points makes 

Monaco an ideal venue for spotting details on the cars. 

Monaco remains the only true street circuit on the calendar. It’s well known for being tight, bumpy and 

tough on cars and as a result teams tend to run highest possible downforce, with no regard for top 

speed, higher ride heights and in many cases softer suspension. 

Monaco also hosts the tightest slowest turn in F1; the Loews Hairpin. Getting around here requires over 

20-degrees of steering lock, 5 more degrees than any other turn. To allow the cars to make this turn, the 

front suspension is modified; with different steering attachments to the upright for more lock, altered 

power steering racks and crucially revised wishbones. 

As wishbones are allowed to have relatively large cross sections and teams exploit this for aerodynamic 

performance, Monaco’s demand for a large steering angle creates clearance problems for the upper 

wishbone. So many teams make a modification for the rear of the wishbone to allow the front wheel to 

clear it. 




MONACO – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

Monaco Set up: the misconception of wheelbase 

To round the tight Loews hairpins teams need to alter their wishbone to clear the wheel (arrowed) 

Every year it's necessary to increase the maximum steering angle 

of the cars so they are able to run in Monaco's narrow streets, and 

in particular around the old, tight Loews hairpin. A car needs a 

steering angle of 22 degrees in Monte Carlo, and so the front 

wishbones are modified accordingly to allow greater movement of 

the front wheels. Stiffer suspension pieces, particularly steering 

arms and toe-in arms, are also used here to cope with the 

occasional brush with the barriers, and the cars run a higher ride 

height than anywhere else to cope with the bumps. 





Monaco’s layout presents unique demands to the teams. As we are all aware, it’s all about slow and tight 

turns, thus devoid of any long straight or fast turns. Other tracks have low speed turns (Hungary) and 

there are other tight turns (La source at Spa). Monaco combines all of these and adds the issue of public 

roads. Complete with; camber, bumps and kerbs, plus the ever present Armco barriers lining the 

trackside. 

Thus Monaco requires an exclusive set up to cope with these demands. It’s well known that teams run 

maximum downforce here; the drag that this inefficient aero set up brings bears no penalty as there are 

no straights to speak of. With the addition of aero devices limited now with the 2009 rules, teams cannot 

add the plethora of add on winglets and flaps to add downforce. This year a few teams will run add-on 

winglets in the 15cm free zone in the middle of the rear wing, but little else aside from maxed out wings 

and gurney tabs will be used. Ferrari have added a small winglet to the tail of their shark fin engine 

cover this weekend for a little extra downforce. Additionally a floor and diffuser that work well at higher 

ride heights will be beneficial, although teams do not run Monaco specific floors. Obviously to cope with 

crowned road and bumps, teams run their cars at higher ride heights around the principality. Added to 

this softer springs and roll bars will induce more wheel travel and see the aero move through a greater 

range of attitudes than normal. For Monaco the resulting aero penalty is offset by the greater 

mechanical grip. 

Due to the low average speed, Monaco is much more about mechanical grip than aero; this is an area 

where misconceptions exist. Wheelbase, although its a fundamental fact that shorter vehicles have 





tighter turning circles, in F1 terms wheelbase account for very little at Monaco. With wheelbases over 

three metres, the difference in team’s wheelbases is just a few percent and not enough to have a 

primary advantage over the other factors differentiating the cars. Long wheelbase cars have won at 

Monaco and in testing teams and drivers have never found wheelbase a key factor through tight turns. 

Frank Dernie quoted me a couple of perfect examples; “when Brabham were concerned about their 

1983 long wheelbase car around Monaco because it was around 12″ longer than the previous car, Nelson 

said he did not notice it at all” and pulling directly from his experience when at the start of the Eighties 

Williams were testing the FW07 six wheeler (a standard FW07 with an extra rear axle). “The Williams 6- 

wheeler obviously had an effective long wheelbase and one of the first things we tried, before 

committing to the project, was a tight circuit test at Croix-en-Ternois to make sure it was not a disaster. 

Jacques Lafitte said he forgot he was driving the six wheeler after a few laps.” 

Mercedes GP are bringing their previous front suspension to Monaco. This results in the car resorting to 

its previous short wheelbase set up. This is not aimed at creating a shorter more nimble car, but simply 

not being enough long wheelbase wishbones available to the team. Unfortunately for Mercedes this will 

push weight forwards in the car, which is counter productive at a track where rear tyre traction is critical. 

So while wheelbase is not a primary factor in rounding tight turns, then what is ? Steering lock accounts 

for most of the solution, only Loews at Monaco (the tightest turn in F1) and La Source are turns where 

the driver has to turn the wheel beyond half a lock. Drivers sometimes having to remove one hand from 

the wheel, to get enough clearance for their crossed arms. If the front wheels can turn enough then the 

car will get around a tight turn, of course a longer wheelbase car will need slightly more lock for the 

same turn a short wheelbase car. To allow the front wheels to steer enough a few mechanical alterations 

are required. Firstly the steering racks can be altered with a different ratio to the rack and pinion. But 

more commonly the outboard end of the track rod is brought closer to the uprights kingpin (steering) 

axis, resulting in more ‘steer’ for the same rack displacement. This can bring an extra 5-degrees of 

steering angle. To allow a power steering system to have a longer stroke, the teams need to alter the 

pistons that assist the rack in moving, by also making them longer. Then at the outboard end of the 

wishbone, the pivot bearing should have enough freedom to steer the wheel through the required angle, 

but clearance between the wheel and the wishbone often requires the wishbones to be altered. This is 

normally just a notch moulded in the rear leg of the upper wishbone. Teams do also fit more robust 

wishbones for brushing the Armco, as well as tougher drive shafts. Although the latter is as much about 

accelerating over bumpy surfaces, than the side thrust from a wheel touching the barrier. 

So who ever goes well at this weekends GP, will be as a result of a mechanical set up and downforce that 

are matched to the tyres. How long their wheelbase is not going to be the deciding factor. Although who 

actually wins may be as much down to luck as any set up parameter! 





7.2 Red Bull 

A new blown rear wing with an extra slot (arrowed) and windows in the diffuser all downforce to the 

RB6 

For the third race in a row, Red Bull produced aero updates to the RB6 and in Monaco this consisted 

largely of a new blown rear wing. Ahead of the expected debut of their F-duct in Turkey, this wing is 

aimed at high downforce and follows a pattern taken by several teams where-by a 15cm slot in the front 

of the main plane feeds inside the wing to exit via a full width slot. Making the 2 element rear wing act 

like a 3 element wing, so it can be steeper for more downforce. Monaco also gives the chance to view 

the car at angles not possible at normal circuits. We can see that the upper diffuser deck is not as large 

as other teams (e.g. Renault and McLaren) and does not use complicated vanes in the opening at floor 

level. What we can see those is the two windows in the sides of the upper deck to allow the exhaust to 

blow up inside the diffuser. The added energy from the fast moving exhaust gasses creates more 

downforce when the engine is revving. 





Modified brake discs 

In order to improve reliability following Sebastian Vettel's difficulties at the Spanish race, Red Bull have 

changed the RB6's brakes discs for the Monaco Grand Prix. They now feature smaller holes than the ones 

originally requested from brake supplier Brembo. During Thursday practice the team used the discs 

pictured, with small oval holes (red arrow), whereas for qualifying and the race the team opted for the 

same discs Ferrari use. 





7.3 McLaren 

No major visual updates appeared for Monaco, they were the only team to run an f-duct in the race. 

However both drivers suffered mechanical problems in the race, with Hamilton’s car struggling with 

overheating front brakes and Buttons car retiring due to overheating. This overheating was caused when 

the team did not remove a foam block, used to keep the cooling fans inserted into the sidepods. 

Reducing the cooling air getting to the radiators and sending the coolant temperatures sky high. 

What Happened to Buttons McLaren on the Grid 

Fans blow through tubing into a duct, with an optional dry ice tray, which is secured into the sidepod 

with a foam block 

At the start of the Monaco Race, McLaren had a rare engine failure. This was not a problem with the 

engine itself, but caused by a procedural problem on the grid. 

Before setting off for the grid the car is warmed up in the garage and the driver often completes several 

laps, cutting through the pit lane before finally parking on the grid. By this time the car is fully up to 

temperature and needs fans to keep the car cool. In the case of the engines radiators and oil coolers, this 

takes the form of fans inserted into the sidepod inlets. Fans pass cooling air through the radiator cores to 

cool the engines fluids. 

For McLaren their sidepod fans comprise several parts, an external fan which feeds into convoluted 

tubing to a carbon fibre duct, this has the option of a tray of frozen nitrogen being inserted into it to 





further reduce temperatures. This then is inserted into a rigid foam block that is squeezed tightly into the 

sidepod inlet itself. Other teams have electrical fans fitted into similar carbon mouldings, these are all in 

one piece and when removed nothing can be left behind. 

What happened to McLaren in Monaco, and this was partly shown by the FIA TV feed, that the 

mechanics withdrew the ducts and tubing, but on one side the foam black was left stuffed in the sidepod 

inlet. This was obviously missed by the mechanics, but was brought to their attention by the BBC TV pit 

lane reporter Ted Kravitz. By then it was too late and the car had to complete the formation lap and start 

the race with the block still in. The team were obviously anxious, but the block does have a hole through 

it, so some cooling airflow was getting through. With the safety car deployed on the opening lap and the 

pit lane closed, Button had no choice but to circulate a low speed, with the engines temperature slowly 

rising until steam could be seen spewing from the sidepod. 

Although this was a rare error, as the car has these fans fitted when it pits during testing and free 

practice. One still wonders if McLaren will revert to a one piece design or tighten up the grid procedure 

to prevent another similar situation arising at future races. 

Revised rear diffuser 

The latest version of McLaren's diffuser is very similar to the one introduced by Renault, with double 

longitudinal profiles (yellow-highlighted area). However, there are differences to the French team's 

solution. The side diffuser is less angled (1), very long and has a unique profile in its end section. There is 

also a new, small flap (2) and an additional one (3) under the deformable structure, which is designed to 

boost suction of air from underneath the car. 





Ferrari F60 









Ferrari F60 





7.4 Ferrari 

Ferrari added this small winglet to the tail fin for added rear end grip 

In addition to a revised front wing flap, more downforce was added to the car via a small winglet added 

to the rear wing. This two element wing sits in the 15cm free zone in the middle of the wing. Adding 

parts like this costs drag, but Monaco the relatively low speeds means that downforce takes precedence 

over top speed. 

Unlike the similar Lotus solution, Ferrari have a shark fin to package the wing around, so the winglet 

splits into left\right sections either side of the fin. Equally unlike the other team Ferraris winglet is just a 

single element with a significant gurney tab attached. 

The teams weekend and indeed season was given a blow when Alonso's crash in Free Practice 3 wrecked 

the car and destroyed the chassis. 

Teams rarely scrap a chassis, with only 5 or so monocoques being built for the entire season, losing one 

may see the team need to make a new tub in case of future incidents. One effect of the crash was that 





we could see the Ferrari diffuser from below as it was winched from the crash site. Visible, was the 

intake for the upper deck of the double diffuser, as the stepped underfloor narrows early create an inlet 

well forward of the rear axle line, which is where the rules intended the diffuser to start. 

Unlike Renault and McLaren the Ferrari diffuser is quite conventional; without the longitudinal vanes 

aiding airflow up into the top section of the diffuser. 

Front wing modifications at Monaco 

At Monaco teams usually add flap in order to gain extra downforce but Ferrari instead preferred to 

reduce the flap’s inner chord probably to improve the airflow under the car and towards the diffuser. 





[Source: Jamesallenonf1.com] 

Photo reveals details of Alonso’s Ferrari 

When Fernando Alonso crashed in practice for the Monaco Grand Prix, his car was lifted away from the 

circuit on a crane and photographer Darren Heath was right there to capture it. The result is this 

photograph, which at face value shows little more than a very smashed up Ferrari. However looking 

more closely at the underside of the car, there are some details which have been secret up to now and 

they tell us quite a bit about the design philosophy behind the car. 

Starting with the obvious – the car is leaning backwards. Obviously there is no driver in it, but experts say 

that allowing for that, the photo 

still shows that the weight 

distribution would appear biased 

towards the rear. The lifting strap is 

usually about 1800mm from the 

front axle, so a bit more than half 

way. 

Look at the back of the car; the 

double diffuser entry section is 

pretty large, but not extreme by 

today’s standards, apparently. It is 

also believed to be quite close to 

the Toyota design, which may well 

be because of the aerodynamic 

expertise hired in from Toyota over 

the winter. 

The most interesting revelation 

from this photo is the front section. 

Look at the floor near the leading 

edge of the bargeboard; it starts 

wider then tapers to the minimum 

width until widening for the driver’s 

seat area. 

The narrowing helps the chin are 

(which looks a bit like a tea tray) 

work as a diffuser, with air being 

fed by the clean centre section of 

the front wing. Downforce 

generated here gives a forward 

centre of pressure, and perhaps 

helps explain how Ferrari can use a 

seemingly benign front wing 





without suffering from a forward balance in high speed. 

The other interesting revelation is to do with the way the team operates the ride height of the car. This is 

a big talking point this season due to the new rules on refueling. 

The plank retaining skids are cleverly detailed around the inner edges of the plank wear holes. This is 

probably to allow the car to be run a fraction lower whilst still keeping within wear limits. It shows a 

good understanding of precisely how the FIA apply the plank wear regulation in practice too. 

They are clearly running plenty of rake, look closely at the front of the plank and you can see that there is 

hard rubbing, while there are just a few witness marks of light touching further back. The front of the 

plank looks like it is deflecting up, since there seems to be hard rubbing on the entire area ahead of the 

seat despite minimal touching further back. 

With refueling banned this season and the car therefore required to carry 160 kilos of fuel, which lowers 

it, giving as little as possible away on ride height is very important. 





7.5 Renault 

Renault Barcelona spec wing was also run in Monaco, the inner end of the flap is raised with the main 

plane being slotted beneath it. 

Renault was apparently not joking when they claimed to update their in every race. The team did not 

introduce a major update in Spain but has brought new updates at every single Grand Prix, each of them 

effectively used as they were all found to be consistent with windtunnel data. Together, Renault's car 

has already improved 0.75s since the first Grand Prix. 

This time around, the team had another new front wing development, an area where they admitted to 

be lacking last year. The new version features a turning vane below the stacked element to help manage 

flow together with the endplates. More important however is the change in profile of the major planes. 

Stepping away from the steep drop the elements features towards the centre of the wing, the new wing 

shows an upward leading edge of the middle element, whereas the base plane is now split in two, 

inward of the front wing adjuster. 





7.6 Mercedes 

Mercedes was forced to return to the short wheelbase format for this race because the wishbone and 

steering changes created problems for the team in Monaco format. It was not in order to gain greater 

agility for the street circuit, as in Monaco format the team are able to steer the front wheels at a greater 

angle to navigate the tightest turns. However, the resulting short wheelbase would have hindered the 

cars set up, as it shifts weight forwards when at Monaco you need rear end grip for traction. 

Their Barcelona spec roll hoops and engine cover were brought to Monaco. It transpires the decoupling 

of the airbox snorkels from the roll structure and allows the team to tune the inlet to suit the tracks 

demands on engine and aero and as such, in Monaco the team ran larger inlets than those used in 

Barcelona. This is a further benefit to the shorter inlets the set up provides, which aid the engines 

breathing. 

Where do we put the obligatory cameras? 

Year after year teams are trying out new positions for the cameras. Be it the nose cameras or those on 

the engine cover, since they have an aerodynamic influence they are deemed interesting to optimize. As 

the shape is defined as a neutral wing, the only thing that's left is try to position it where it can be used 

as a flow straightener. 

Mercedes have therefore followed McLaren's example and are now running nose cameras located low 

above the front wing. And if that wasn't enough, the cameras are moved as far back as possible while 

still attaching on the front wing supports. 





7.7 Sauber 

A new lip on the endplate (yellow) redirects airflow around the tyre 

As part of a major Barcelona package Sauber introduced several new parts. With a new front wing 

endplate and engine cover also making it to Monaco. The front wing endplate sported a new lip ahead of 

the rear tyre; this lip was also used at Force India and may be part of their new technical director, James 

Keys’, influence on the car. This lip redirects the airflow coming down from the rotating front tyre and 

sends it around the wheel, rather than impacting the flow already passing along the endplate. 

Meanwhile the teams engine cover gained two pairs of cooling outlets, both inspired by rival teams. At 

the front shoulder of the sidepod, McLaren inspired outlets span the width of the sidepod, while around 

the exhaust outlets Ferrari derived gills, joined to the exhaust outlet by a common slot to make them 

legal were also fitted. It’s possible these change have also resulted in the team being able to make the 

engine cover narrower at the rear, although this is not a visible change. 





7.8 Virgin 

Force added rear end downforce Virgin ran this winglet in Monaco (yellow) 

A new upper deck to the diffuser, brake duct fins and cooling outlet (yellow) differentiated the B spec 

Virgin 





Again the team ran one B-spec chassis, with the second tub being readied for the Turkish GP. This new 

car is more than a larger fuel tanked iteration of the VR01, we noted the shark fin engine cover at 

Barcelona, but there are also numerous changes around the back of the car. Most notable is another 

section added to the upper deck of the diffuser, although the rest of the lower diffuser section is 

identical to the sister car. Smaller details added in this region include a new fin on the rear brake ducts 

and a larger Red Bull style opening in the engine cover for cooling. 

Like Ferrari, Virgin responded to Monaco’s downforce demands with a winglet added to the tail fin 

above the rear wing. This only appeared on the Vr01-B as the sister car was not equipped with a shark fin 

top body. 






New front brake ducts 

There are a lot of new solutions on the Force India in Monaco, including a new front wing, with different 

central pillars and endplates. The team have also introduced this new front brake duct, with a wide and 

rounded extension in its lower section (see arrow). This is designed to improve the management of 

airflow in this area, better directing it under the car and towards the rear diffuser's central section. 

The team is becoming a consistent and serious 

mid field contender, it continue to press on with 

development to the VJM03. In Monaco the 

Silverstone based team brought new front brake 

ducts and a revised nose cone. Taking a lead 

from the Brawn BGP001 and Toyota TF110, the 

inner brake ducts reach forward to the front 

perimeter of the tyre. This creates a smooth path 

for the airflow, both around the wheel and into 

the brake duct scoop. Additionally the lower 

edge of the ducts forward extension is bulged to 

further shape the airflow passing off the front 

wing around the front tyre assembly. 





Although the nose cone forms the front end primary impact structure and is homologated for the 

season, Force India have been able to reshape the fairings added around the front wing mounting pillars. 

Previously there was a square shaped trailing extension to the pillar; the new version has a rounded 

shape, similar to the hump moulded under the nose. These latter changes to the nose cone were also 

brought to Barcelona. 




TURKEY – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

8. TURKEY – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








From a track with the slowest corner to a track with the highest loaded corner on the calendar, the 

Istanbul Park circuit’s now famed Turn 8 is a world away from Monaco. One of the few new tracks to 

create a really demanding experience for the car, Turkey challenges the cars with two short straights, 

two tight sequences and one super high load corner sequence. 

This means the cars have to be aerodynamically efficient to take the corners as fast as possible without 

compromising straight line speed. Thus we saw many new developments for this track as teams seek to 

make improvements to the chassis after the opening races. Problems found at early tests and races are 

only now being readied for production to make it to the races. 





8.2 Red Bull 

Red Bulls F-duct uses a driver controlled fluid switch to direct airflow from the lower branch into the 

upper branch of the duct 





As part of other changes the Pod wing was narrowed for Turkey 

New front wings flaps required a larger opening on the endplate to pass flow around the front tyres 





Despite their potential being realised with back to back victories, Red Bull brought major changes to the 

Turkish GP. There were new parts from the front to the rear, starting with a new front\rear wing, new 

pod wings and their much needed F-duct making its debut. 

Compared to McLaren Red Bull have had a car considerably slower in a straight-line. This is mix of their 

engines outright power and their aerodynamic philosophy. Thus the F-duct, which maintains downforce 

for corners and allows higher top speed on the straights, would be a perfect addition to the car. Like 

Ferrari their challenge has been to create an F-Duct solution that fits into the existing chassis. The 

problem they face is creating enough flow through the duct to make the rear wing stall. 

McLaren with their well routed duct and efficient snorkel, have less of a problem. So along the same 

lines as the Ferrari duct, Adrian Newey has penned a split duct that uses a fluid switch to route the 

airflow between two branches of the duct. The fluid switch is analogous to an electrical switch with 

sends current down one direction in a circuit dependent on the resistance the differing branches 

provide. 

Air flows into the RB5’s Duct via separate inlet in the engine airbox inlet, this then passes into the ‘V’ 

shaped switch. In normal running the air flows down the lower branch and exits with little impact under 

the rear wing. Air also flows in this state through a forward reaching duct into the cockpit. Red Bull using 

a white plastic outlet to this control duct sited near the steering wheel on the left hand side of the 

cockpit. When the driver seals the ducts outlet with his left hand, the resistance to airflow in the control 

duct and lower branch increases. 

Air instead finds an easier route to pass through the upper branch duct, the fluid switch doing this with 

out any moving parts. The air that passes through the upper branch passes inside the shark fin and into 

the rear wing flap, exiting through slots in the back of the flap the airflow under the wing is broken up 

and downforce and drag are reduced. As with most teams introducing their F-duct the team struggled to 

get it working consistently and the device will reappear for the next race in Canada. 

As mentioned the RB5 also had a new front wing and pod wings. The front wing sported different flaps 

which also merged into the endplate in a different way, with the endplate sporting a larger aperture to 

allow airflow either side to be routed around the front tyre. While the pod wings are now much 

narrower, which is the opposite to the trend for ever larger and more complex pod wings. No doubt 

related to the front wing changes these sidepod mounted turning vanes direct the front wheel wake 

away from the centre of the car for more aerodynamic efficiency. 





Red Bull have introduced their version of the F-Duct system at Istanbul Park. It's a very similar concept to 

those on the McLaren and Ferrari, with the air blowing on to the rear wing via two big pipes inside the 

engine cover (red arrows). Like the first version of Ferrari's system, the duct is controlled by the driver's 

left hand. The team tested it during Friday in Turkey, but it was removed from both cars for qualifying 

and the race because it was not consistent enough and it was difficult to operate. It will be back on the 

cars in Canada. 









RB6 – new front wing forTurkey 

New triple profiled front wing for Turkey with double vented endplates to turn the air more effectively 

outside of the front tyre profile. 









Sidepod panel development 

Launch 

Bahrain 

In a constant seek to improve airflow management around the lower sidepod zone Red Bull launched 

five versions of its sidepod panels. The launch version panel was quite wide with its lower part inclined 

inward. There was also a triangular vertical floor fence. At Bahrain RB6 had this triangular floor element 

rejected and featured new panels with a slimmer lower part and a new connection to the mirrors. 

China 

The third panel version was seen at China with the panel having its width reduced much sooner as it 

meet the car floo. This change was made possibly to reduce drag by letting more air pass freely through 





the inner zone created by the panel and the car body. Finally the panel’s connection to the car’s body 

has also been revised. 

Spain 

Turkey 

At Spain the team was forced by rules to inboard the car mirrors so a mirror-less version of the Chinese 

spec was used. Lastly since Turkey the RB6 features narrow panels (fifth version), a change possibly 

triggered by other car updates taking place also at Turkey. 





8.3 Mercedes 

Mercedes GP's F-Duct system, which was introduced in China, has received an upgrade in Turkey. It can 

now be activated by the driver's foot thanks to a bigger duct on the side of the chassis (blue arrow). This 

was previously much smaller and used to cool the drivers. The system of pipes used to direct the air to 

the rear wing is very complicated and they are all concealed by the engine cover, eventually reaching the 

wing's main profile through the side endplates. 





8.4 McLaren 

Numerous smaller changes were brought by McLaren to Turkey. Their rear wing was altered, still running 

the second generation F-duct slot, but now the rear wing sports a twisted profile. With a cambered main 

plane and the wings angle of attack being reduced at the wing tips. These changes reduce the induced 

drag of the wing for less downforce but greater top speed. Even with the F-duct the rear wing still needs 

tuning for other sections of the track. 

Also on the MP4-25 were revised pod wings with the top section gaining a Ferrari style stepped section. 

This changes suggests other areas of the car were altered for the weekend, but perhaps not visibly so. It 

was poignant that McLaren ran flow viz tests on Friday morning further strengthening the belief that the 

car had geometry changes around the front wing. 





Revised sidepod panel 

In its own series of "updates at every race", 

McLaren have revised the sidepod panel. 

Attached to the car's floor and to the sidepod 

itself, all connections also fulfil an aerodynamic 

purpose. The panel itself is now more curvy at 

the bottom, while the section where it is closest 

to the sidepod now has a leading edge leaning 

inwards, aiming to direct more air around the 

outside of the panel. 

The panel, although apparently simple, is 

extremely important for the car's rear end 

efficiency. It attempts to overcome the 

turbulence behind the front wheels and guide air smoothly along the sidepod. Eventually it influences 

the diffuser, rear wheel drag and the rear wing. 

The revised sidepod panel has now a trapezoid shape for mainly two reasons. Firstly to decrease the 

volume of space between the panel and the sidepod body aiming to increase the speed of air passing 

trough taking advantage of the venturi effect created, and secondly to form a channel on the external 

panel surface. This channel separates the flow of air passing around the sidepods body into two, one 

flowing at the bottom and another one guided through this channel around the sidepods middle section. 

This new panel formation improves the quality and quantity of air flowing towards the rear of the car. It 

is worthy of reminding that the lower streamline of air around the sidepod bottoms, which is now 

improved, interacts also with the diffuser side section via the small vent in front of the rear wheels. 





Diffuser revisions for Turkey 

At Turkey the central zone twin fences have a new thicker upper part while the pointy side tabs were 

once again revised on a constant seek for the ideal flow of air through this zone (all changes in orange 

color). 









Rear axle winglets update at Turkey 

The MP4/25 had its rear axle upper winglets modified at Turkey. They have now a more horizontal 

profile compared to the old inclined upwards profile. This change may have been triggered by the 

introduction of the new sidepod panels also for Turkey. 

The major role of the rear axle winglets is to decrease turbulence in this zone created by rear wheel 

rotation and are considered by rules to be part of the braking system. 





8.5 Ferrari 

Ferrari fitted this bulge to the underside of the diffuser the streamline the flow 

The F10’s downforce deficiency showed itself through the fast turns of Istanbul. New parts were brought 

to Turkey, But Ferrari are now aiming a greater update to debut at the European GP. developments that 

were ready for this weekend were largely an F-duct update and diffuser changes. At its debut the Ferrari 

F-duct was somewhat awkward to use as the driver had to press the back of his hand against the control 

duct. Ergonomics have been improved with the use of a knee operated control duct, the driver having 

greater strength in his leg and keeping his hands free on the straights for steering. 

At the back of the Ferrari, the Diffuser which has retained the same concept since Bahrain, was updated 

with a bulged section moulded in the lower diffuser. This is largely an addition to keep the airflow 

attached as it passes up from under the car and passes through the diffuser. A greater diffuser update 

based on Toyota’s unraced TF110 are reported to be in the pipeline for Valencia. 









Revised F-duct control 

Ferrari have revised the layout of their F-duct 

system for Turkey, in particular the mechanism 

by which the driver controls it. In Barcelona the 

driver was closing the hole using the back of his 

left hand (inset), a manoeuvre that was not 

very comfortable for Alonso, and even less so 

for Massa, who has his steering wheel 

positioned further forward and hence actually 

had to take his hand off the wheel. In Istanbul, 

the hole is now closed with the driver's left leg 

and here you can see the pipe inside the 

chassis, very similar to the McLaren's. 





Oil tank position 

For 2010 Ferrari do indeed have their oil tank in a conventional position at the front of the engine. Preseason 

it was widely predicted and reported that the oil tank was moved to inside the gearbox casing, to 

free up fuel tank capacity. I spoke to Willi Rampf at the Sauber C29 launch and he confirmed that the 

Sauber uses the entire Ferrari engine and gearbox set up, complete with oil tank at the front of the 

engine. Thus it made sense Ferrari also had this set up. Last year due to KERS Ferrari split their oil tank 

with a secondary oil tank mounted to the rear of the engine above the clutch, this was enclosed by the 

gearbox when installed the complete car. This freed up space for the MGU and batteries. 





8.6 Renault 

Yet another front wing iteration for Renault, this one truncates the cascade replacing part of it with a 

winglet 

On an almost race by race basis Renault are finding improvements in their front wing assembly. Istanbul 

saw the car race with a revised endplate and cascade set up, the main wing and flaps being similar to the 

Monaco versions. Where as the previous version had a full width cascade element, the new wing 

truncated this part, running instead a Brawn style winglet with a small cascade extending outboard from 

it. The endplate retains a air of vanes one of which supports the cascade. This new set up appears to be 

more aggressive, with the winglet having a very steep angle of attack. 





Some addition under the nose comes with a new front wing. Small fins? 






Amongst other upgrades the front wing endplate vane and pod wing vane were new for Turkey 

(yellow) 

Trying to catch up with the mid field leaders Force India produced major and minor updates for Turkey. 

They also had their F-duct make its debut, quite possible similar in ducting to the Ferrari and Red Bull, in 

the VJM03’s case, the duct is fed from the oil cooler inlets on the roll hoop, the control duct exiting 

inside the left hand side of the cockpit near the steering wheel. What marks the Force India setup as 

different is that the duct feeds slot sin the main plane, thus the air is stall the wing earlier than near the 

trailing edge of the flap, which is hw other teams achieve it. 

Other visible updates were a revised front wing endplate, the smaller outer vane being altered and 

gaining a rectangular indentation. Then the Pod wing which has run a flap half way down since Bahrain, 

has now gained an additional vane hanging from the flap. 





Force India's F-duct helps season best qualifying 

Force India has secured their year best qualifying session of the year with Liuzzi in 6th and Sutil in 9th 

position. The F-duct that was introduced in Turkey but only raced by Liuzzi is now on both cars and 

certainly helped them to make a step forward at Montreal, where low drag on the long straights is vital 

for good laptimes. The team's system is very similar to that of Ferrari, with inlets on each side of the 

airbox and a channel going into the rear wing through the shark fin. Meanwhile the team also brought a 

smaller rear wing and 

8.8 Lotus 

For Turkey the T127’s gained a new rear wing assembly, The rear wing is now mounted on two pylons to 

pass the load from the upper rear wing into the chassis. This has allowed Lotus to fit a more curved beam 

wing, this now rises higher up over the crash structure. 




CANADA – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

9. CANADA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








After a two year abscence round 8 of the 2010 championship saw a much anticipated return to the 'Ile 

de Notre Dame' and the circuit Gilles Villeneuve. A completely unique race track with long straights 

punctuated by chicanes like those at Monza, it has street-race-like risks from the walls lining the track. 

Equally the track is semi purpose built, akin to Melbourne in the manner that the track is green and not 

rubbered-in, so grip improves over the weekend. 

Canada rewards car with low drag, to aid speed on the straights and in order to get through the slow 

chicanes strong brakes are needed to haul the cars down from 200mph, then good aero balance and 

mechanical grip gets the cars through the turns themselves. 

Such is the importance of straight-line speed and braking, teams produce an aero package specifically for 

this race with smaller wings and larger brake ducts and these developments will also be used Monza and 

for some teams also at Spa. 

This year’s race weekend was dominated by tyres, the green track and resurfacing acting together to 

create a very low grip surface. Allied to the low downforce set up, the tyres did not see enough loads to 

bring them up to temperature and this lead to graining. Graining is when a tyre isn’t gripping the track 

and instead slips, the shearing effect then pulling the rubber from the tyre which forms into balls and 

reduces grip. A tyre can recover from graining, but equally a tyre that has started to grain, loses heat and 

can struggle even more to form a clean contact patch. 

Over the Canadian weekend, teams were finding that both types of tyre were degrading through 

graining, although the latter stages of the race saw the track rubber-in and allowing longer stints on the 

tyres. 





9.2 Ferrari 

With one race until the major upgrade Ferrari raced with a straightforward version of the F10. A low 

downforce rear wing was used along with larger brake ducts. Ferrari also continued to run their f-duct to 

aid straight-line speed at the Montréal track. 

Enlarged brake ducts 

Montreal is the toughest circuit for brakes - that's the reason everybody is very keen to produce bigger 

brake ducts to improve cooling here, as you can see with this Ferrari front duct. In addition, it is critical to 

choose the right friction materials for the brake pads and discs in order to cope with the high levels of 

heat and wear. Ferrari, as is their tradition for the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, have temporarily swapped 

from Brembo to Carbon Industries products, as used by the likes of McLaren and Williams. 

















9.3 McLaren 

Another team with a major upgrade in the pipeline, but McLaren isn’t expecting their new bodywork to 

arrive until Silverstone. Instead the usual array of smaller developments were ready for Canada one of 

which was specifically for this circuit, a revised version of the F-duct. This included changes to the 

ducting inside the shark fin and a narrower outlet slot at the rear of the wing. McLaren also were quoted 

as having small changes to the diffuser. 

9.4 Red Bull 

There were no major changes at Red Bull. Once again they were running the turkey front wing and 

endplate, but not their f-duct. It transpires that the initial tests with the f-duct proved problematic as the 

vent on the rear wing reducing downforce, probably by allowing a small amount of airflow through the 

duct, when it should be closed off, this would reduce the low pressure region behind the rear wing, 

costing downforce. 

Modified front wing 

Red Bull started the Canada weekend with a new front 

wing. It was based on the one with two openings on the 

endplate, which they introduced in Turkey, but featured 

a wider main plane and single flap. For qualifying - and 

for the race - they have reverted to the previous wing, 

which features only one opening and a slotted main 

plane. The team have also modified the car's diffuser 

and bodywork around the exhaust area. In addition, a 

lot of work has been carried out to improve the cooling 

of the brakes. 





A good view of the red bull hub for canada 





9.5 Renault 

An extreme "W" shape rear wing reduced drag for Renault 

Renault were one of the few teams to really develop a 'ultra' low drag wing package. As drag is largely 

tuneable by the rear wing size, they made an extreme version of their "W" shaped rear wing. Their 

Canada version had an even more pronounced twist in the outer sections, such that in frontal profile the 

flap is largely obscured by the raised leading edge of the main plane, this takes the load off the flap and 

reduced drag. 

To balance the reduced downforce at the rear, Renault also modified their front wing. By using their new 

front wing and endplate package Turkey and removing the cascade elements, front downforce was 

reduced to match that at the rear. 

Renault like most teams also greatly increased the size of their brake ducts, the complex inlets inside the 

front wheels gained a much taller rectangular scoop. 





Renault front wing may have changed several times but on the contrary the rear wing follows a less 

aggressive development program. At Canada the R30 featured a new low downforce rear wing which 

was the second version since season start and the fourth since winter testing. 










Renault have introduced a new front 

wing at nearly every track this year and 

Montreal is no different. As the first 

low-downforce circuit of the year it 

definitely warrants a change. Only the 

main plane is the same as the previous 

wing. All other components are 

different - a more complex endplate 

with an additional vertical inner fence, 

a revised flap with an extra element at 

the rear, and no additional top flap. 





Brake duct development 

With Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve being 

particularly hard on the brakes, all teams have 

modified their braking systems to cope with the 

additional demand. On a full lap, the cars are 

for 16% of the time under braking, more than 

any other track on the calendar. 

Renault for instance clearly increased the brake 

duct aperture, catching more air to provide 

more cooling to the brake discs and pads 

(notice the difference with the Turkish 

configuration in the inset). Renault also ran a 

new front wing, removing the stacked elements 

of the wing. The rear wing was also modified, retaining the unique W-shape, but extending its curves and 

reducing the frontal surface of the wing. 





9.6 Williams 

A raft of changes from front wing, turning vanes and diffuser lifted the Williams pace. 

Although not specifically for Canada, Williams introduced a major upgrade package last weekend. This 

affects the entire front aero and lead towards a new diffuser. Starting at the front, the wing uses a 

similar frontal profile, but its endplates are following the increased trend for forming the endplate from 

down turned ends of the wing. In Williams case the main plane and the two flaps curve down to form a 

vaned endplate, although the view of this is obscured by larger vane added tot he front of the endplate. 

Sitting behind the wing and under the nose are new bargeboards again following the Toyota 2009 style 

for large vanes extending from edges of the nose cone. This year this route has also been adopted by Red 

Bull and Ferrari. While these are detail changes the whole philosophy of the front splitter has been 

changed. No longer does the Williams have the Brawn inspired snowplough, instead a simpler more 

conventional splitter with fences along its edges has been developed. Flow coming off all these new 

devices then passes around the sidepods via revised pod wings, which are not stopped above the trailing 

edge of the bargeboards. Along with the diffuser which is the teams third major iteration this season, 

Williams gained a step change in pace in Canada. Although it will take a track with a greater reward for 

aero efficiency to tell if the gain was from these changes and not the unusual conditions in Montreal. 


Williams have introduced two new 

front wings in Montreal. Both feature 

two vertical turning vanes and are 

designed to boost the airflow from 

underneath the raised front section of 

the chassis (1). Each front wing has a 

different forward upper wing (2). On 

one example there was a small 

splitter (3) on the outside of the 

endplate. The team has also brought 

two different rear wings. 





9.7 Sauber 

The cars mid section saw developments to three aero devices (yellow) 

Much like Williams, Sauber introduced a package of changes for Montreal. In the C29's case, this was 

formed of revised bargeboards and pod wings. Although similar of profile to the old bargeboards, the 

new version no longer curves over to meet the side of the chassis. Instead they end vertically and the 

down turned fin has been added to the chassis side. Aiding the flow of these devices, the pod wing has 

gained a small supplementary fin fitted to the axe-head floor section. Sauber continues to make these 

changes under the guidance of new technical director James Key but as yet no major upgrade package 

has been announced for the forthcoming races. 





9.8 Lotus 

After two races, the new Lotus endplate gained this “L” shaped vane 

Mike Gascoyne’s design team continue to be the only new team to bring small updates to the car for 

every race. In Canada these changes affected the front wing and rear wing of the Lotus. Having run the 

Toyota inspired front wing endplate\cascade package for two races, they team added a small "L" shaped 

winglet to replace the simpler vane fitted to the original design. At the rear Lotus moved away from their 

higher downforce rear wing with its 15cm slot and used a far lower downforce two element wing. This 

used straight elements and was devoid of the complex slotted arrangement of the normal wing. 




EUROPE – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

10. EUROPE – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








From Canada to Spain, F1 travelled back across the Atlantic for the European GP at Valencia to yet 

another temporary circuit, however there are few other similarities between Montreal and Valencia. 

Although the track was green on Friday, it soon rubbered in, aided by the heat and Bridgestone shod 

support races, and as such the track did not see the same graining as in Canada. 

Valencia also has a number of faster turns to join the tight sequences, thus the teams were running far 

more downforce at this track. 

With the cars now remaining in Europe until the last four races of the season, the European GP was a 

venue for teams to introduce their mid season upgrades, in preparation for the run of upcoming fast 

classic races. We saw three teams joining Red Bull with a blown diffuser, making use of the fast moving 

exhaust gas to gain rear downforce. 

There were also a number of other significant upgrades with even more expected at the next race in 

Great Britain. 

Diffusers 

Exhaust blown diffusers It was Adrian Newey's Red Bull RB6 that revived the idea of using exhaust gasses 

to drive the aerodynamics at the rear of the car. Although launched with a periscope exhaust system, at 

the last test of the winter the RB6 surprised all by emerging with a low exhausts blowing both over and 

through the rear diffuser. Now four months later other teams have caught up with developments of the 

blown diffuser concept. By influencing the flow between the wheel and the chassis, as is passes over the 

diffuser, more downforce can be gained, plus this is an efficient way to produce downforce with little 

additional drag. With gains of several tenths being reported, this is an advantage the teams can't be 

without. 

However the three teams joining the fray were not blowing their exhausts through the diffuser, merely 

over it. Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes have completed similar modifications to the rear of their cars, in 

order to re-route the exhaust pipes to exit low down and in line with the floor. This directs the exhaust 

flow over the top of the diffuser, with some of the teams adding new gurney flaps to help drive the flow 

out from underneath the diffuser, effectively creating a larger exit area for more downforce. This is a 

similar practice to that used through the eighties and nineties, that created a diffuser sensitive to 

throttle position, but it's thought the greater distance of the exhaust from the diffuser exit lessens this 

impact. 





Of course sending a 800 centigrade exhaust stream along carbon fiber components brings it own 

problems, with each of the teams tackled the issues in their own way, Ferrari modified their gearbox to 

relocated the lower wishbone, Renault ducted the exhaust flow through a shaped heat shield and 

Mercedes added coated and vented heat shields around the wishbones. Over the coming races several 

other teams are expected to unveil their blown diffusers, for Silverstone; McLaren, Williams and a race 

later Force India. 

Vaned diffusers 

Last year teams found two loopholes in the regulations to allow double diffusers, one to allow larger 

exits in the bodywork surrounding the gearbox, then a new interpretation of the bodywork facing the 

ground rule, allowing an opening beneath the car to feed the new upper diffuser. Even with these literal 

interpretations of the rules teams could only make the inlet under the car span 50cm which is the 

maximum width the underbody step could span. This was because the inlet was masked from beneath 

by the bodywork forming the step. However it transpires that a further stretch of the rules allows 

additional inlets beneath the car, as long as they do not form an opening when viewed from below and 

meet the maximum radius rule. Thus teams have created a vaned section outside the 50cm stepped area 

in order to create yet larger inlets. This was initially exploited on the unraced Toyota TF110 and 

subsequently raced by McLaren and Renault. Images from the last race show Mark Webbers Red Bull 

mid air and also being craned away after his airborne moment, clearly showing that Red Bull's new 

diffuser exploits this larger opening. Williams also added vanes to the underfloor area on their Canadian 

update. With Toyota engineers at several other teams the shift towards this design will be spread even 

further up until the end of the year when double diffusers are banned. 

F-ducts 

If Valencia proved to be the debut race for ‘Blown diffusers', Turkey was the debut for most teams new 

‘F-ducts'. However several teams tried these in Friday practice and chose not to race them while they we 

further developed. Now two races later half the field sported a race ready F-duct and even McLaren 

modified theirs to allow the driver to control it with his hand and not his knee. As seems to be the way 

with F1 designs, teams are once again converging on what appears to be the optimal design solution. 









Each teams system feeds a fluid switch from a high pressure point on the car (i.e. McLarens snorkel, or 

around the airbox inlet), the switch takes the form of a "V" shaped duct, one lower duct feeding out to a 

low pressure region beneath the rear wing and the other duct leading into the rear wing. This fluid 

switch is further connected to a duct running into the cockpit for the driver to alter the pressure within 

the switch by closing the vent with his hand. Normally airflows through the switch into the lower duct 

and also into the cockpit, then when the driver gets onto the straight he covers the cockpit duct and the 

flow in the switch takes the path of least resistance and redirects through the rear wing, creating the 

stall effect. Not surprisingly the FIA have moved to ban this technology next year, by preventing any aero 

devices (bar those specifically permitted) being under the driver's control. 





10.2 Ferrari 

Having run their new exhaust and sidepod package at a brief promotional run at Fiorano the week 

before, Ferrari arrived at Valencia with at least some knowledge of the heat and installation issues with 

the new set up. This was Ferrari’s much anticipated upgrade, but was in effect much more limited in 

scope than expected. Only the exhaust, radiator and sidepod package formed the main visible part of the 

upgrade, as the wings and diffuser remained largely as they were run at previous races. 

Having been designed with a “U” shaped exit pipe, the F10 gained a repackaged exhaust system, which 

instead pointed the pipe low down and exited through an opening in the tail end of the sidepods. This 

blows the exhaust over a heat shield affixed to the top of the diffuser. 

The trailing edges of the diffuser gained extra gurney tabs to help extract airflow from under the diffuser 

for more downforce. The rear of the car was littered with heat sensitive stickers and bands of heat 

sensitive paint, so the team could monitor the temperatures. 

In Felipe Massa’s case his lower rear wishbones were rested as he was able to run a revised gearbox 

casing that moved the wishbone upwards to move it away from the 800c heat of the exhaust flow. 

Alonso did not get this upgrade as his gearbox was not due for its four race rotation. Completing the 

upgrade package were new radiators and cooling outlets designed to cope with the summer run of hot 

European races. 





Exhaust-blown diffuser 

Ferrari have made radical changes for 

Valencia, introducing their version of 

Red Bull's exhaust-blown diffuser. 

They have dramatically modified the 

shape of their exhausts, from the 

previous design (1), to a lower, more 

RB6-inspired layout (2). They've also 

introduced a new gearbox case to 

Felipe Massa's car to raise the rear 

suspension pick-up points to help 

accommodate the changes. There's 

also a larger radiator layout (3) to 

handle the additional heat within the 

lower and more enclosed bodywork. 

Inset, you can see the exhaust on the 

F10 is shorter, and therefore ends 

before Red Bull's. 

Just as rumours suggested in recent days and 

weeks, Ferrari's aerodynamic update at Valencia 

includes a revised exhaust system that mimicks 

the Red Bull's design. Rather than exiting the 

exhaust gases through the upper side of the 

sidepods, the pipes are now relocated to push 

gases out just above the car's flow, ahead of the 

rear diffuser. 

At the same time, Ferrari also shielded its lower 

wishbones to protect them from the heat while 

strips are added to measure the exact 

temperature of the suspension arms. The team 

also revised the rear brake ducts to make sure 

they don't fetch too much of the hot exhaust gases. 

The change marks the departure of the high exhausts, introduced by Ferrari and quickly followed by its 

competitors. The last time a low exhaust was tried was on the McLaren MP4-18, again a Newey designed 

car. That one however had its exhausts exit into the diffuser, causing troubled pressure differences. The 

MP4-18 eventually got revised with high exhausts before it was first raced. 

F10-Valencia.flv 

Clic the above link to show a video of the new diffuser 









This was only fitted Felipe Massa's car, as Fernando Alonso's gearbox was still within its 4-race sequence 

and will be swapped out when rotation is due. 

























10.3 McLaren 

With their major upgrade and blown diffuser expected for the next race, McLaren made do with the 

revised Canadian diffuser, with its vertical fences sporting arched joins to the roof of the diffuser. Also 

rumours of a new f-duct control where confirmed when the McLaren was spotted with the control duct 

now being inside the cockpit near the steering wheel, rather inside the footwell. Thus the driver controls 

the stalling of the rear wing by using his hand rather than his leg. 





10.4 Red Bull 

Having trialled their F-duct in Turkey, Red Bull returned with a revised duct. This was raced for the first 

time and the changes were in the detail and not the general layout of the system as explained in the 

Turkish Tech Desk. 

Perhaps more significantly the RB6 gained a new diffuser, at first this appeared to be a slightly reworked 

version of the previous diffuser, merely having arched joins to the vertical fences inside the diffuser. But 

Mark Webbers crash gave a clear view of the underside of the diffuser and this has changed since the 

early part of the season. 

Their double diffuser is fed by airflow passing under the car and into an inlet formed between the 

diffuser and the narrowing of the underbody. Previously this was a simple opening and around 50cm 

wide. Now Red Bull has adopted the McLaren\Renault philosophy of creating a vaned opening, which is 

far longer and wider the previous version. 

In theory the larger the opening, the more mass flow passes through the upper deck of the diffuser for 

more downforce. The vanes are effectively a false floor set at the maximum radius allowed, to create an 

opening beyond the 50cm width of the underfloor step. This will have given the RB6 a significant rear 

downforce boost. 

Also Red Bull adopted new front brake ducts, these featured forward extensions for the first time, such 

that the duct extends forward the front perimeter of the tyre. This smoothes the airflow between the 

front wheels and chassis. 





As already noted, the Red Bull sported a new diffuser complete with the vaned inlet beneath the car. 

This feeds into a revised diffuser, with an arched roof. Rather than joining the diffusers internal splitters 

at right angles, large radius joins are used creating a unique effect. 

Also Red Bull have finally joined most other teams in extending their inner front brake ducts forwards 

the tyres leading edge. Although similar designs are now banned on the outboard end of the wheel\tyre, 

they are still allowed on the inboard end. 





They are useful in smoothing the airflow off the highly loaded outer span of the wing as it passes around 

the inner face of the spinning tyre. 





10.5 Renault 





Renault were one of the teams to introduce a blown diffuser for Valencia. In concept the same a Ferrari 

and Mercedes versions, with the periscope exhaust switched for a low exiting one blowing over the top 

of the diffuser. But in detail Renault’s system was more intricate. 

The large diameter round tail pipe is fed into a shaped heat shield, to create a wider lower exit to protect 

the lower wishbone from heat. To the side of the outlet there were several fences to direct the airflow 

accurately up the diffuser. As the sidepods have been altered to accommodate the new tail pipes, the 

cooling outlets have also been revised with a square window created around the gearbox fairing to allow 

hot air to escape the sidepods. 

Not content with just the blown diffuser Renault also brought another front wing and brake duct 

package. Reportedly the teams 22nd iteration of front wing, although perhaps only the fifth major 

endplate version. The endplate and wing follow the Turkish set up, but the outboard cascade is now 

reduced to a simple flap attached the vane. This fed back to further revised brake ducts, with a down 

turned vane replacing the more complex arrangement seen previously. 





Low blowing exhausts 

Renault are another team to introduce a Red Bullstyle 

low blowing exhaust configuration in Valencia, 

joining Mercedes and Ferrari (Force India and 

McLaren are expected to follow at the next round at 

Silverstone). The exhaust exit is covered (red arrow) 

and has some thermal protection against the high 

temperatures. Renault have also introduced a new 

gearbox casing to allow for the higher suspension 

pick-up points that are needed to accommodate the 

revised configuration. 





Old vs. new exhausts 





Increasingly close to the leading teams Renault continued their aggressive development strategy with yet 

more changes around the front of the car to compliment a new blown diffuser. The Turkish GP front 

wing endplate was modified to create a gap between the outboard cascade and the winglet inboard of 

the endplate. Previously the cascade element was adjoined to the winglet. Also the front brake ducts, 

which have sported several different vane arrangements, had a far simpler "r" shaped vane towards its 

leading edge. 













R30 – Shortened engine cover at Valencia 

The introduction of the EBD at Valencia forced the team to shorten the length of the engine cover’s rear 

zone to comply better with the total new rear bodywork. 













10.6 Mercedes 

The other of the four blown diffuse teams, Mercedes fitted their low exhaust in Spain. Similar to Ferrari 

other than the tailpipe was still enclosed with the sidepods exit. Plus there were also vanes added to the 

diffuser top to guide the airflow and keep heat from the tyre. 

Revised exhausts 

Like Ferrari, Mercedes GP have 

introduced shorter exhaust pipes and 

lower bodywork at the rear of their 

car in Valencia to mimic Red Bull's 

exhaust-blown diffuser. Unlike 

Ferrari, they haven't brought a new 

gearbox casing, but have adapted 

their original design. A new rear 

diffuser has also made its debut on 

the MGP W01 for the European 

Grand Prix weekend to utilize the air 

blowing from the exhausts to the 

fullest. 

10.7 Williams 

After an inconclusive debut for the major aero update in Canada Williams again ran the new set up and 

resurrected the F-duct on Barichellos' car, leaving Hulkenberg with a new rear wing to race. 

One feature since picked up on the Canadian aero package is the new diffuser, much like Red Bull with 

an outwardly a simple update with a wider upper deck to the diffuser. But closer inspection the wider 

upper deck is facilitated by the addition of a vaned inlet beneath the car. Simplistically the larger inlet 

allows for a larger outlet and creates more downforce. 

The f-duct appeared outwardly to be the same arrangement as used in Turkey, the set up could not be 

used on Hulkenbergs' car, as the seat needed modifying. Instead the non shark fin top body was mated 

to blown rear wing. Not only featuring the small 15cm slot on the flap but also a McLaren-like large inlet 

on the main plane feeding a full width slot on the rear of the wing. The extra slots created, allow for a 

steeper higher downforce wing package. 





Having moved away from the ‘Brawn-like' splitter mounted turning vane towards more conventional 

nose mounted vanes in Canada, Williams also had a major diffuser upgrade. As described in the start of 

this review, Williams have moved to a wider vaned diffuser inlet. Valencia also saw the return of their F- 

duct; however a seat fitting issue for Hulkenberg meant that only Barichello had this device fitted. 

Instead Hulkenberg ran a new rear wing with a conventional blown slot, the main plane having large 

15cm wide opening in its upper surface to feed air through the full width slot onto the rear of the wing. 

Similar in concept to McLarens Spanish rear wing, effectively creating a three element wing from just 

two elements. Williams's performance was also boosted by a Cosworth engine upgrade, despite the fixed 

mechanical specification the electronics have been recoded for better drivability, something that has 

been a weak point of the Cosworth package. 






Another team with a major update expected in the forthcoming races, their blown diffuser is predicted 

for the German GP. Force India were again running their F-duct for this race. 




GREAT-BRITAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

11. GREAT-BRITAIN – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








Exhaust Driven Diffusers 

Red Bulls Exhaust exits low and blows through the diffuser 

Not withstanding the 2009 downforce reduction rules, the diffuser continues to be the dominant factor 

in aero design. Making the most of creating low pressure under the rear of the cars bodywork is as 

important as ever. Last year we saw teams exploit rule loopholes to create additional underbody inlets 

feeding larger exit areas, known as the double diffuser. This year teams have further exploited these 

rules for ever larger inlets and outlets. However it has again fallen to Red Bulls Adrian Newey to look at 

the history book and re-invent a concept that has since fallen out of favour. Last year he did this with the 

pull rod rear suspension and this year it has been the exhaust driven diffuser. By mounting the exhaust 





outlets in line with the floor, they blow through the diffuser driving greater airflow and hence creating 

more downforce. It seems for the team’s midseason upgrades, many will follow Red Bulls lead. 

A diffuser is a simple device; a diverging duct creates low pressure under the car, creating negative lift, 

i.e. downforce. The FIA has acted several times since the mid eighties to cap the potential of the diffuser 

by reducing its length, height, ride height and position relative to the rear axle. Moving through the 

diffuser is the key to it producing downforce, or Mass flow as the aerodynamicists call it. This can be 

achieved with the size of the diffuser itself, effectively capped by the rules, but teams still are split on 

how large an exit they want to create within the current bodywork rules (McLaren\Renault large exit, 

Red Bull\Ferrari smaller exit). Onset airflow is another factor controlled by the front wing, bargeboards 

and the floor itself, but this is somewhat capped by what can be achieved with the limited devices the 

rules allow for. Then there is the flow over the top of the diffuser, this has been perhaps the biggest area 

of development in recent years. By ending the diffuser with a gurney flap, the airflow over the top of the 

diffuser can actually aid airflow underneath the diffuser. This is the reason sidepods have become 

slimmer\undercut and the diffuser appears more exposed amongst the coke bottle bodywork. Effectively 

the harder the air flows over the diffuser, the more powerful the gurney can be in puling airflow from 

inside the diffuser; this makes the diffuser act as though the exit is larger and makes more downforce. As 

long as a car needs bulky sidepods (even bulkier with this years fuel tanks) then the potential power of 

the airflow over the diffuser is limited. However we have a secondary source of powerful airflow at the 

rear of the car and that’s the exhaust pipes. Using the flow from the exhaust pipes can actually drive 

airflow through the diffuser, either by blowing inside the diffuser or over the top and driving the gurney 

flap. This isn’t a new solution, in fact Renault exploited this as early as 1983, when diffusers first appears 

in place of the banned full-length ground effect tunnels. Renault split the pipes exiting the turbocharger 

into three and directed them exactly at the point where the flat floor kicks up the form the diffuser. Soon 

most teams followed this format and for twenty or so years teams experimented with different exhaust 

outlet positions within the diffuser. As F1 switched from turbocharged engines to normally aspirated, the 

flow out of the exhausts was no longer ‘smoothed’ by the action of the turbo, the flow became much 

more abruptly on or off. along with the increasing dominance of the downforce created by the diffuser, 

this made the amount of downforce produced vary depending on throttle position, i.e. more downforce 

at full throttle where the flow was aided by the engine, then less downforce as the driver lifted off 

reducing the through flow. To negate the effect teams moved the exhaust outlets from the diffusers kick 

line to a less sensitive position, normally further up the diffuser roof. Eventually teams sought to avoid 

any sensitivity and move the exhausts clear of the diffuser and blew them over the top of the exit. Until 

Ferrari shifted their exhausts to exit periscope style in 1998. Most teams followed this approach aside 

from a few teams, which wanted to keep the blown effect, notably this was Both McLaren and Minardi. 

Eventually both teams had to divert from blown diffusers in order to package the much shorter exhaust 

pipe lengths demanded by the engine suppliers. It was Adrian Newey at McLaren that raced the last 

heavily blown diffuser, the MP4-16 exited its pipes low down in the middle of the diffuser. In 2002 the 

MP4-17 went to periscope exits due the demands of the Mercedes engine. At the cars 2002 launch he 

told me “Requests from the engine supplier, from Ilmor, was different exhaust system requirements 

which meant we could no longer continue with putting the exhausts exits out through the floor so we 

had to go for top exits”. I asked if this was an engine related requirement not aero, Newey said “yes”. I 

further prompted him if this was for shorter pipe lengths? He replied “I’d rather not go into details; we 

couldn’t accommodate what was wanted”. Underlining his commitment to the blown diffuser 

philosophy, I asked he’d tried try top exits on the old car (mp4-16)? Newey said “No never”. 





McLarens MP-15 blew its exhausts into the diffuser 

But Newey reverted to a blown diffuser for the highly experimental MP4-18 in 2003. The exhausts exited 

relatively high in the side channels to blow into the taller middle tunnel. However the routing of the 

exhaust past the all new carbon fibre (double clutch) gearbox lead to problems and along with other 

technical issues the car never raced. Replaced by the MP4-17D and MP4-19 both with the by now 

conventional periscope exhausts. 

McLarens still born MP4-18 blew its exhausts towards the middle of the diffuser 





This year Newey designed the RB6 to have a blown diffuser, although it was first tested with the 

conventional RB5 exhausts, it was only at the last test the team unveiled the secret exhaust 

development. Even replacing the old exhausts with look-a-like stickers to fool the unwary. This 

development was posted here back in early march, as was the opening into the diffuser. Strangely many 

fans back then denied the systems appearance and the fact it blew through the diffuser. 

The RB5 that preceded this year’s car, already had high placed rear wishbones, and this allowed the 

subsequent car to run exhausts mounted low down and exit well below the wishbone, avoiding any 

overheating issues of the carbon fibre components. Teams have run exhausts in very close proximity to 

the wishbones now for many years, the differing strategies teams employ reduce the thermal load on 

the carbon fibre wishbones. Either gold foil film, extra carbon fibre heat shield or these are often coated 

with ceramic finishes to reflect heat. This latter finish being made obvious by the matt silver finish tot he 

parts. Sauber have run these on their top rear wishbone for many years. The heat shield even having a 

small air inlet to feed cooling air in-between the heat shield and wishbone beneath. Teething troubles 

may be expected as the teams start to run the new exhaust positions, but the heat protection will be a 

solution relatively easy to overcome. 

The inlets for the diffuser (yellow) are visible behind the exhaust outlets 





The inlets for the exhaust flow are visible within the diffuser (yellow) 

Contrary to the popular belief the low exhaust position is not related to the Red Bulls Pull rod 

suspension, in some respects having the exhaust in close proximity to the pull rod\rocker linkage is 

undesirable. But the exhaust positioning is probably more sensitive to wishbone position, such that 

teams aiming for low wishbones may have problems packaging the exhaust under the suspension. 

McLaren and Virgin have notably low wishbones. 

In the RB6′s case Newey made an opening in the diffuser to allow the diffuser to be blown both under 

and over by the exhaust. This probably helps the airflow going up the outside shoulder of the upper 

diffuser deck, which probably has little energy and struggles to keep attached. Other teams this weekend 

may be expected to run a diffuser blown over the top, which perhaps offers less potential then a through 

blown diffuser, but at least will be legal next year when double diffuser are by banned by new rules 

preventing openings in the diffuser. 

Another misconception of the low exhaust is the effect on tyre temperature. It’s possible the exhaust 

does affect the inner shoulder of the rear tyres, but this may well be an effect teams want to discourage. 

Any tyre heating will certainly be secondary benefit of the system and the sole reason for going with low 

exhausts. Its interesting to note Red Bull have run a fence on the floor between the exhaust and rear 

tyre. This probably helps keep unwanted heat from the tyres. But in Canada, where tyre temperatures 

were, this fence was removed. It could be that the tyre heating effect could be a tuneable parameter, by 

varying the heat shielding around the coke bottle area. 

So far we have seen Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes have followed Red Bulls ‘back to the future’ 

exhaust\diffuser solution. McLaren and Williams are expected to follow suit for the enxt race At 

Silverstone. 





Red Bull Map-Q: The secret to the teams Q3 pace 

As explained above, teams blowing their diffusers rely on the throttle being open to keep airflow passing 

to the diffuser. Without this airflow, the diffuser loses downforce and the driver suffers a loss of grip or 

balance just as he enters the corner. 

While careful design and how the exhaust is placed in relation to the diffuser, can alleviate some of the 

problems, any benefit from blowing the aerodynamics will be reduced when the throttle’s closed and no 

exhaust gasses are flowing. 

It’s been reported that Red Bull are following a practice that was used on turbo cars (i.e. the old F1 

turbos and WRC cars) to keep the turbo spooled up. By means of retarding the ignition when the driver is 

on the overrun as he slows for a corner. If Red Bull can keep the flow out of the exhaust pipe relatively 

constant, even when the throttle is closed going into a turn, then the diffuser will see a more consistent 

air flow and maintain downforce. Relieving it of the on\off throttle sensitivity so often a criticism of 

EBD systems. In effect an antilag system is trying to do the same as the Red Bull EBD mapping, 

maintaining a constant exhaust gas pressure, on or off the throttle. 

Ignition normally occurs within the cylinder, driving the engine 

When an engine is running normally, accelerating with the throttle open, the ignition of the fuel and air 

takes place inside the cylinder above the piston. The expansion of the gasses drives the piston and turns 

the engine. 

After ignition, the exhaust valve opens and the cooler gasses rush down the exhaust pipe 





During this process the gasses then escape into the exhaust pipe as the exhaust valves opens. As the 

burning has already occurred the gasses are some what cooler, the then temperature of the actual 

ignition. This means the exhaust gasses flow down the exhaust pipe with some speed and energy. 

On a closed throttle, little air or fuel are burnt reducing the exhaust gas flow 

When a driver lifts off the throttle, the engine does induct much air, nor burn much fuel, as a result the 

engine slows and the exhaust flow also slows down. It is this problem that affects the diffuser, as it sees 

less exhaust flowing through it. 

With retarded ignition, the mixture burns in the exhaust creating a flow of gasses through the exhaust 

What Red Bull do is retard the ignition and maintain some throttle and fuel to allow combustion to 

continue to take place. However the ignition of the air and fuel mixture now takes place later in the 

engines revolution, when the exhaust valve has already opened. Rather than driving the piston down, 

the explosion of the mixture goes into the exhaust, still expanding as it does so. This creates a rush of gas 

through the exhaust mimicking the effect of running with the throttle open. Thus the diffuser still sees a 

flow of gas and maintains downforce despite the engine slowing down. 





Retarding the ignition overheats the exhaust components (red) 

Of course this gain doesn’t come for free, the heat of combustion now takes place in the exhaust port, so 

that the exhaust valve, cylinder head and exhaust pipe all suffer excessive heat. This will affect them, as 

they cannot withstand this sort of thermal load for long periods. Equally the process burns additional 

fuel, in the race this is a negative thing as fuel is limited and no refuelling is allowed. 

This ignition retard mapping would be controlled via the SECU via the driver selecting a steering wheel 

control, using quite normal tuning parameters and not some clever workaround. Of course this is all 

quite legal. 

If the overheating issues can be contained, this would be a relatively simple mapping to introduce for 

another EBD team. As mentioned Renault Sport, Red Bulls engine supplier would have to know about 

this. Copying the concept, but not the actual SECU code would be quite easy. 





11.2 Ferrari 


For the first time this season, Ferrari have 

introduced a double-flap solution on their front 

wing at Silverstone to increase downforce. The 

previous, single-flap solution can be seen in the 

top drawing and the new version in the bottom 

drawing. Of particular interest is the more 

sophisticated shape of the profiles, which rise up 

in the middle section of the wing (see red arrows 

in bottom drawing). 





A new higher downforce tripled flapped wing was adopted for Silverstone with slightly revised cascade 

winglets. The main profile has now a W-shape in order to speed the air passing under the centre zone 

and closer to the endplates. Nevertheless the endplates remained unchanged. This was the 5 th front wing 

spec since launch time. 

Silverstone 

Valencia 

























11.3 Red Bull 


Red Bull introduced a heavily-revised 

front wing at Silverstone, though only 

Vettel got to qualify and race with it. A 

new camera position in the centre of 

the wing (1) helps produce more 

downforce there, allowing the team to 

reduce the main wing angle, hence 

cutting drag. The design also features 

a new flap adjustment (2), two vertical 

slots (previously one) in the endplates 

and a revised main profile. The overall 

effect of the changes is improved 

airflow to the leading edge of the 

sidepods, which in turn means the 

diffuser can work more efficiently and 

produce greater downforce. 

Updated diffuser 

At Silverstone Red Bull are again 

using the revised diffuser they 

introduced in Valencia. It's different 

to the previous incarnation (inset), 

featuring a pointed top section on 

the outer edge (1), similar to the 

McLaren, and a round shape (2) at 

the point where the vertical middle 

plate meets the top edge of the 

diffuser. 





11.4 McLaren 


Although they dropped their blown 

diffuser for Silverstone, McLaren are 

using their new front wing. It 

features two main differences. The 

vertical splitter in the middle of the 

wing is new (top arrow). It is nearly 

level with the inner edge of the front 

tyres and is designed to improve the 

airflow directed to the inside of the 

tyres. The second change is the 

raised curved section under the 

splitter (bottom arrow), which acts 

as a skirt to improve the efficiency of 

the main profile. 





The new front wing has a new vertical flap splitter mounted on the main flap and onto a point located 

about the one third of the total main flap length and close to the endplates. This splitter, which houses 

the wing adjuster divides not only the main flap into two sections but also the upper cascade element. It 

is quite interesting to point out that the splitter follows a similar shape pattern to the endplate so the 

whole design gives the impression that the wing has now two endplates, the usual outer one and 

another one inner. 

The main flap has also a new wavy profile, curving upwards both close to the inner endplate-splitter and 

to the classic endplate to create a Venturi channel at both inner endplates bottom sides. 





Lastly the endplates were also revised, having now a new longer upper triangular fin, new second slot 

which is not divided into two anymore and a more sealed rear surface with a much smaller cut. 

The changes are made to increase the speed of air under the wing and force the inner flap section to 

generate more downforce. A logical evolution of the splitter would be to extend it below and behind the 

flaps to improve the air guidance under the car (acting as an air fence). 













McLaren playing catch up with diffuser 

After many teams surprised McLaren by coming up with a blown diffuser at the European Grand Prix in 

Valencia, Woking had its blown diffuser ready at Silverstone, only to find though that it didn't work as 

expected. Diffusers and 

exhausts around them are 

an especially difficult area to 

model, and it is in this area 

that teams are suffering 

most of the in-season 

testing ban. McLaren added 

shark gills on both sides in 

FP2 but finally decided 

against the system. Another 

new attempt will be done at 

the German GP in 

Hockenheim after the team 

has learned the system 

better thanks to the ontrack 

data in Silverstone. 





NEW 

OLD 





NEW 

OLD 









McLaren in the dark on flexing front wing 

McLaren have been running a new front wing design since Silverstone, in many ways quite different to its 

opponents. The new wing - in the lower half of the image - has a slightly revised endplate but also 

includes a more elaborate vertical support ahead of the inner front tyre wall. While it supports the 

stacked element, it has now 

become an important element to 

manage the airflow over the wing 

and onto the front tyres. 

Meanwhile though they have 

discovered the performance 

advantages Red Bull's flexing front 

wing might bring, and the team are 

desperately trying to understand 

the system, which so far they have 

failed to do. At the same time the 

team acknowledged that they are 

running somewhat behind in the 

blown diffuser area. At least they 

know what to do next... 





11.5 Williams 

Low-blowing exhaust system 

Previously only Nico Hulkenberg has used Williams' 

low-blowing exhaust (red arrow), but on Friday 

morning at Silverstone team mate Rubens 

Barrichello was also running the upgrade. It's quite 

similar to Ferrari's system, and is therefore less 

complicated than the ones used by Red Bull and 

McLaren. The FW32 also features new bodywork 

and engine cover for the British race. 

Williams have introduced yet another major car update at Silverstone after introducing an effective F- 

duct at the previous Grand Prix, held at Valencia. The car already showed much improved pace in Spain, 

but at Silverstone both drivers could confirm their performances thanks to a new blown diffuser. The 

change will obviously benefit the FW32 a lot as it previously featured high exhausts that appeared to 

disturb upper sidepod airflow quite a lot. The new sidepod slopes down much steeper, resembling much 

the design of the Red Bull. With this change, exhaust gases are now pushed onto the diffuser, allowing it 

to work more efficiently while drag will certainly have reduced above the sidepod. 




GERMANY – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

12. GERMANY – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








For the German GP we saw excitement and controversy, both on the track and on the technical side. Just 

two races after the Williams and Mercedes teams followed Red Bull with blown diffusers, the same 

teams have now leapfrogged Red Bull with even more radical designs. As Hockenheim is a relatively slow 

track nowadays, the low speed downforce generated by the blown diffuser was a critical advantage. 

Then as a sign that pressure to win the championship grows, McLaren raised concerns over the flexing of 

the Red Bull and Ferrari front wings. Although the Red Bull wing has shown signs of flexing all year, it’s 

now been raised as a issue within the media and required the FIA to act after the race to ensure the 

wings met the defection test, in the spirit of the rules. Initial concerns over the tyre choice for the 

German GP proved unfounded as despite losing time on Friday to the rain, teams were able to run both 

option and prime tyres without dramatic problems with pace or longevity. 





Aero elasticity – Red Bulls front wing 

A very public exposure of the front wing flexing on the Red Bull was made during the German GP, the 

analysis by journalist Stephane Samson and photographer Darren Heath, showed the tips of the Red Bull 

front wing running far closer to the ground than their rivals. While some of these pictures can be 

explained partly by different ride heights, roll positions or attitude changes, some pictures show the Red 

Bull front wing in a drooped (anhedral) attitude. This has been backed up by on board footage, where by 

the roll hoop camera is fixed rigidly to the car and any movement of other sprung parts of the car should 

remain immobile in relation to the camera. Yet still the RB6 has routinely exhibited excessive movement 

through out the car speed range. 

Aero Elasticity 

Since the nineties F1 teams have been exploiting a phenomenon called “aero elasticity”, this is where the 

bodywork of the car, mainly the wings, flex to alter their aerodynamic characteristics. At first this was 

largely created by the entire rear wing assembly bending it backwards, then more specific parts of the 

rear wing and as exposed this season, the front wing of the Red Bull has been visibly flexing. 

This flexibility can be for three different benefits, either reduced drag, improved balance or greater 

downforce. With a rear wing limiting top speed, most attention has been paid to reducing its drag. As 

mentioned this was first tackled by the top rear wing and endplates being angled backwards by the beam 

wing twisting. A few pre-season failures leading to big accidents saw the FIA introduce the first bodywork 

flexibility rules. In order to enforce the rules, the FIA designed the first deflection test, a rig pulls the wing 

backwards by the endplates and the deflection was measured. While this test stopped this practice, it 

also set a standard to which the cars had to meet in order to be deemed legal. Thus if the car passed the 

scrutineers deflection test, it was approved to race. However if the car could flex its wings and still meet 

the test, then they had an advantage that couldn’t be immediately penalised. 





Soon teams sought to reduce the angle of attack of the rear wing via flexing the flap or main plane. Then 

as the FIA introduced additional deflection tests to circumvent these workarounds, the teams flexed the 

wings to reduce the slot gap and stall the rear wing (Much like a passive F-duct), again deflection tests 

and latterly the slot gap separator effectively stopped this practice. 





Front wing flex 

Exploiting aero-elasticity with the front wing has not been to reduce drag for greater straight-line speed, 

as the front wing produces very little drag. At the end of the nineties teams were using front wings that 

drooped into an anhedral shape (i.e the tips drooping downwards creating an inverted “V” shape). This 

placed the wing and its endplates closer to the ground, both of which gained more downforce. Firstly the 

wing was closer to the ground which increased the ground effect. Up to a point the lower a wing is to the 

ground the more downforce it generates. Then the endplates role in sealing the high pressure above the 

wing from the low pressure below it, is improved if the endplate can run closer to the ground. Effectively 

make it act like an Eighties wing-cars skirt. To prevent this the FIA produced another deflection test; a 

50kg (500n) load is applied to the wings endplate, should not produce more than 10mm of movement. 

Again this had largely stopped the practice of excessive deflection for front wings. 

However there were still benefits to be had from flexing the front wing flap that was not affected by this 

test. Instead the wing has been flexed to main a stable centre of pressures position, flexing the flap 

downward at speed to reduce the wings angle of attack reduced downforce and moves the centre of 

pressure backwards, reducing the cars tendency to be oversteery at high speed. There is now a 

deflection tests to prevent this practice. 





Red Bulls RB6 front wing 

At some races last year and evident through out this year is the front wing of the Red Bull RB6 flexing at 

speed. Visible from the on board camera above the drivers head, the front wing tips can be seen to 

slowly run closer to the ground as the car accelerates. As this is a low frequency movement, the effect 

can be seen in reverse as the cars brakes from high speed. The wings endplates springing up as the car 

rapidly loses speed and the aero load applied to the wing diminishes. This was clearly visible from the 

early season races and as early as the Chinese GP I emailed the FIA about this practice and whether it 

was deemed legal. They reiterated the standard 500n – 10mm deflection test and suggested the car was 

legal, not directly countering the point that the wing is seen flexing. While most teams wings will flex at 

high speed, whereby some movement is often seen as the car brakes from high speed. The amount of 

movement and the low speed at which it starts to occur are startling with the Red Bull wing. The point 

made by the FIA to me back in April and again after the German GP in late July was that the car met the 

deflection test, thus was legal to race. 

Flex Wing RB6.flv 

Clic the above link to show a video of the flex wing 





This flex was seen back in China 2010, not simply Germany 





Front wing Load cases 

An F1 car makes its own weight in downforce at just 70mph, that’s ~600kg of load on the car, half of this 

load is from the wings and half from the diffuser, thus the wings create some 300Kg of load at this speed. 

With the cars centre of pressure being some where near 45% forward biased, this means the front wing 

is creating something like 140Kg of load, split between the left and right wing each wing is producing 

70Kg of load at just 70Mph. this is the speed of the slowest turn at the Hungaroring this weekend and 

only slightly faster than the hairpin at Monaco! Thus the FIA limit of 50kg is vastly under specified for the 

actual load an F1 car sees at even the slowest circuits. Its not surprising a team can created a wing to 

beat the 50Kg-10mm deflection test and yet achieve far greater deflections, suggested to be as much as 

25mm, at much faster corners. 

How’s this done – is it legal? 

An F1 front wing is a complex moulding of carbon fibre bonded to metal sections. Although the flaps and 

endplate are detachable, from a structural point of view a front wing is a single piece. Mounted at its 

centre section by pylons affixed under the nose cone, itself stoutly fastened to the front of the chassis. In 

the eyes of the rules and with the exception of the driver adjustable front flap, the front wing should 

meet the regulation 3.16 regarding aerodynamic influence: 

-must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any 

degree of freedom); 

- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car. 

Therefore the entire assembly can not be allowed to move in relation to the rest of the car. However no 

car can be 100% rigid and F1 cars are subjected to huge aerodynamic loads, hence the reason for the FIA 

to set the deflection test. If the wing can meet the test and still deflect above the test load, then the FIA 

deem it legal and the car can race. This could be achieved by accident or by design. Its possible that the 

carbon fibre lay up creating the wing will continue to deflect in a linear way all the way from zero load to 

50kg and then for loads of 50kg upwards. It’s reasonable to assume most teams wing respond this way. 

However it’s possible to alter the layup of the carbon fibre or add some from of mechanical system (i.e. 

hinges or springs) to allow a non-linear repsonse to create the 10mm of movement at a 50Kg load, then 

create greater deflections above 50Kg. Thus the engineers could create wing that meets the deflection 

test, but would then deflect down to a desired ride height at a specified maximum speed. 

While this is against the “spirit of the rules” which prohibit flexible bodywork they meet the test as 

defined by the FIA for flexible bodywork, thus the Red Bull and the Ferrari front wings are free to race in 

the eyes of the FIA. 





12.2 McLaren 

Blown diffuser modifications 

In Hockenheim McLaren have run the blown diffuser 

that they discarded on Friday evening at Silverstone, 

with some new modifications. The exhausts have been 

moved outwards, with a longer inner section, and the 

pipe is now cut off at an angle rather than having a 

straight ending. The carbon materials used on the 

diffuser's side channel have also been changed. 

Changes improved the McLaren T3 floor, including the longer slash cut exhaust pipe 

After their problems at Silverstone McLaren brought the second iteration of the blown diffuser to 

Germany. Designed to be less sensitive and also t better cope with the heat, the new exhaust and 

bodywork were retained for the race. Blowing the diffuser provides more downforce as the flow through 





the diffuser is increased. In McLaren’s case the exhaust blows around the side of the diffuser with a small 

window under the rear wings endplate allowing some of the flow to pass inside the diffuser itself. 

Although this latter inlet is less advantageously placed compared to Red bulls slot. Known internally at 

McLaren as the T3 floor, the matching exhaust system now features a longer tailpipe cut at an angle to 

better direct the flow and contain the heat. 





New diffuser for Germany 

Great-Britain 

The new diffuser first tested at Silverstone alongside with the new exhaust blown diffuser package, has a 

new more boxy central zone with a new hole to access the engine starter, much shorter side walls and a 

curving downwards upper element to cope better with the new blown diffuser philosophy (changes in 

orange color). 

Germany 

Under the diffuser and on the inner large wall surface we can observe blue colored stripes. That is 

because the diffuser is coated with new heat protective paint to prevent shape deformation observed 

during free runs at Silverstone. 





What effect does a cut in the exhaust, like above, have on the exiting gasses? 

it exposes the exhaust to mix with the free stream air in a desired way. The shape also manipulates the 

plume in a way that it does not go onto the wish 

bones and floor. The shape also keeps the plume off 

the gear box. If you can imagine a normally cut pipe, 

like a chimney the gases escape and expand 360 

degrees around the pipe orifice, this means for the 

old pipe they were running, the gases were 

expanding onto the centre of the car which is 

unavoidable with the proximity of the pipe. Ferrari 

have been through this with their pipes as well. This 

burrito shape with it's back and open face ensures 

the gas expansion is biased outwardly. 

































Front wing 





12.3 Mercedes 

Revised rear wing 

Mercedes have introduced a new rear wing in Germany. It has a large opening in the main plane (see red 

arrow), which creates something akin to a three-profile rear wing. The solution was introduced in 

Monaco last year by McLaren and copied by BMW Sauber. This rear wing is designed to work better with 

the car's sophisticated F-duct system. 





An open fronted diffuser and slotted rear wing were innovations for Mercedes (both shown yellow) 

Along with Williams, Mercedes modified their EBD set up to create an open fronted diffuser. Where as 

Williams made their inlet rectangular, Mercedes lifted the entire leading edge of the diffuser from the 

flat floor, albeit with a less aggressively sized inlet. Again the diffuser becomes more wing shaped in side 

profile, with the exhaust blowing under the leading edge of the surface. This accelerates the flow under 

the diffuser creating a lower pressure for more downforce. While it looked like EBD design might be 

muted, with the impending ban on diffuser openings for 2011, it seems that aggressively shaped blown 

floor will be a feature of the last stages of this season. Along with the new floor, Mercedes had a new 

wing aping the design of several others teams slotted rear wing. A narrow 15cm inlet is formed in the 

middle of the rear, flanked by bulged walls; this inlet feeds a full width slot at the back of the wing. By 

blowing the extra slot the wing circumvents the rules to create a wing with effectively three elements, 

allowing the wing to be steeper for more downforce. 





12.4 Ferrari 

Revised exhaust system 

Following on from the new front and rear 

wings introduced at Silverstone, in 

Hockenheim Ferrari have brought 

refinements to the F10's exhaust system and 

modified the side channels of their diffuser. 

Inset is the first evolution of the exhaust 

system, introduced in Valencia, whilst the 

main drawing shows the more open 

configuration being used in Germany. Strong 

qualifying times suggest the changes mean 

the team's F-duct, floor and blown diffuser 

are now working in much closer unison. 









Ferrari brought at Valencia major upgrades to improve the car’s performance with the most striking of 

them to be the new blown diffuser exhaust pipes system (inspired by Red Bull). The new lower to the 

floor placement of the exhaust pipes outlet triggered other major changes like a new sidepod shape, 

revised radiators housed inside the sidepods, new rear suspension geometry and a new gearbox case of 

carbon. 

The floor exhaust configuration aims to shoot hot gas emissions directly to the lower rear car end to 

improve the aerodynamic efficiency of the diffuser and to change airflow management at the inner zone 

between the rear wheel and the car body. 

standard 

At Silverstone and during free testing sessions Ferrari had its exhaust pipes cut off at their end to permit 

a stronger interaction of the hot exhaust gases with the rear side airflow coming around the sidepods 

bottoms. This configuration was replaced by a new one with elongated pipes towards the rear end to 

blow hot emissions stronger to the diffuser. The later revision remained for the race. Both specs, the cut 

off and the elongated pipes configuration, can be considered to be extremities of the original design (for 

less and stronger interaction with the diffuser respectively). 





cut off end 

Elongated 

At Hockenheim a revised diffuser is expected to cope better with the new elongated exhaust pipes 

system version 

















Front Wing 

The endplates featured at Hockenheim a new profile with their front bottoms only to bend outwards so 

as to increase the width of the channel under the wing profile and the amount of air entering under the 

wing in an attempt to generate more front downforce. 





Silverstone 

Germany 

















12.5 Red Bull 

F-duct system modification 

There are no large modifications on the RB6 at Hockenheim, with both drivers using the new front wing 

which sparked such controversy at Silverstone. There have been minor improvements to the team's F- 

duct system, which, as illustrated here, is activated from within the cockpit by the driver covering a 

special vent (red arrow) with his left hand. 





12.6 Renault 









12.7 Williams 

Adding an open front to the diffuser (yellow) makes the exhaust now blow under the floor 

Williams along with Ferrari were the first of the teams to follow Red Bull in blowing the exhaust gasses 

over the diffuser. However at Hockenheim the team introduced a major update to the exhaust blown 

diffuser (EBD) concept, by opening the front of the diffuser up to allow the exhaust to blow directly 

under the diffuser. outwardly the rest of the blown diffuser set up remains the same, but the normally 

continuous section of floor that forms the kick lien in between the floor and diffuser has be redesigned 

to form a large open inlet. 

This inlet is far larger than the even the second generation Silverstone spec Red Bull floor. Although 

blowing over the top of the diffuser creates increased flow underneath the diffuser, the chance to blow 

inside the diffuser is a far stronger way of generating downforce. But rather than mould the exhaust 

directly into the flow as was the case with the EBD's of the eighties and nineties, the exhaust blows into a 

large inlet, which probably reduced the set ups sensitivity to the throttle being open or closed. Although 

not the only team to follow this route Williams’ pace suggests their EBD philosophy is indeed a valid one. 






A rare update to the Toro Rosso, with a vented endplate to improve airflow around the front tyre 

So far this season Toro Rosso have not been a team for overt technical developments, so far only a 

revised diffuser and the addition of a flat footplate to the front wing endplate have been noticed on the 

car. But, for Germany the footplate was further developed. Akin to Renault’s endplate, the footplate now 

features vents to direct airflow down and around the front tyre. Effectively Toro Rosso have made the 

old horizontal ledge, narrower and pointed downwards, but as the regulations demand a minimum 

surface area and a rounded edge, the team have had to resort to a vented design that retains the same 

plan area and radiussed edge. 





12.9 Lotus 

As result of the weight saving programme that made the debut at Silverstone, Lotus have been able to 

place more ballast into the car. Some of this ballast is placed in the front splitter sections demanding the 

team fit a support strut to prevent the section flexing. 

12.10 Virgin 

More updates to the VR-01 included a new splitter and add-ons to the front wing endplate & 

bargeboards 

As with Lotus, Virgin continued to develop their Major update from Silverstone. Smaller details not 

obvious when the car raced at Silverstone is the revised front splitter and bargeboards. whereas the 

early season splitter was effectively flat with the side fences, the new versions has dramatic looking 

fences to contain the airflow over the splitter and better direct it under and over the floor. In this area 

the small bargeboard gained a strake running along its length. 

New for Germany was an upturned aerofoil section added to the front wing endplate, although the 

device would actually create lift, its purpose it to redirect airflow around the front tyre to reduce drag. 




HUNGARY – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

13. HUNGARY – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








Hungary comes just 7 days after the German GP and while Hockenheim provided straights and fast turns, 

Hungary is far slower. Low speed grip and high downforce being needed to negotiate the slow turns, and 

the remaining short straight and two fast turns being far less influential on overall lap times. 

With the tight track the Hungaroring also have a bumpy broken surface, with little rubber being laid on 

track before the first practice sessions. 

Just as important as the layout is the heat. Hungary has a reputation for high ambient temperatures and 

these required the teams to open up their cooling outlets to cope with it. Fortunately the rain that was 

expected to hinder track time over the weekend never really materialised and were left with the teams 

reacting to an increasingly hot and grippy track as the weekend progressed. 

Deflecting bodywork 

The issues raised around Red Bulls and Ferraris front wing ride height were main topic of technical 

debate over the weekend. Red Bulls FOM on board cameras were forward facing for this race and the 

moving front wing was now made obvious to those who hadn’t noticed earlier in the year. Several 

theories have been put forward as to why the front wing appears to run so low to the ground. 

Firstly the nose cone itself is bending down; this theory was probably put forward after the nose cone 

mounting failing on Vettel’s car at the British GP. However trackside footage of the nose showed no 

misalignment, when the car is at speed with the front wing running close to the ground. 

Equally being a primary crash structure it’s unlikely that any team would want to have any movement in 

its mountings. A second theory is that the floor deflects allowing the car to run lower to the ground. 

Since front wing ride heights were first raised in 2000, teams have sought to run lower front suspension 

ride heights to move the wing closer to the ground, when the car is out on track. 

The front splitter commonly called a T-tray or Bib gets in the way. This knife edge component that sits 

under the raised section of monocoque will touch the ground and prevent the front end going any lower. 

Teams have tried to allow the splitter to hinge upward when it strikes the ground, allowing lower front 

ride heights, but the FIA introduced a test to prevent this practice 

Subsequently the teams created sprung mounts to meet the 200kg-5mm deflection test, but these were 

outlawed in the wake of Mike Coughlan’s exposé of the Ferraris set up secrets provided by Nigel 





Stepney. It’s possible teams have again engineered a splitter that will deflect at over the 200kg test, but 

there will inevitably be additional wear the front skid blocks and plank, which will impinge the rules and 

see the car, penalised. 

So it remains that the first theory put forward is still the most valid, that the Red Bull wing droops at its 

tips, the bend occurring at the point where the outer wing sections meet the FIA mandated neutral 

centre section. Trackside Images from the German GP and on board footage back up this claim. It can 

clearly be seen the wing is angled downwards at speed and apparently springs back up to horizontal as 

the car slows. 

Now the FIA have confirmed that the front wing deflection test, which was originally a 50Kg load applied 

to the front wing endplate must produce no more than 10mm movement. Will now be upped to 100kg 

and 10mm, however critically the FIA will conduct both tests and the wing must create a uniform 

increase in deflection for the same increase in load. 

This linear reaction to the test load, is to ensure the wing does not has a irregular reaction over the load 

range, as its suspected teams have a wing hardly deflects at loads of 50kg, but for any additional load it 

will deflect far more. All teams will probably have to review their wings in order to meet to the additional 

test; however teams knowingly exploiting flex, may have a larger job on their hands to engineer in the 

linear increase in stiffness that the FIA will subject them to in Spa. 

With the two week shut down, this may be a logistical challenge to the teams, but there's little doubt 

every team will pass the tests in Belgium in three weeks time. 





13.2 Red Bull 

Front wing controversy 

Although TV footage has shown the Red Bull front wing appear to almost touch the track surface at 

speed, the rules demand that when static it has to stay 75mm above the ground. Even so the car has 

passed all the necessary scrutineering checks, including a rigorous one on Saturday in Hungary with 200 

kilogrammes applied to the RB6's underbody and the plank. 





























The Rear upright/driveshaft 





13.3 Ferrari 

Modified rear diffuser 

This drawing from Hungary shows 

how Ferrari's diffuser has been 

modified to deal with the exhaust air 

now blowing under the floor, with 

the element just inside the rear tyres 

(1) now curved. The diffuser's side 

channels (2), which used to be more 

vertical in shape, are now also 

curved. The modifications are 

designed to use the air from the 

exhaust to better effect. 

Front wing – minor changes for Hungary 





The additional endplate’s bulge, which houses a part of the wing activator mechanism, (first presented at 

Silverstone alongside with the triple profiled wing) was abolished at Hungary revealing that the flap 

activator mechanism was further revised. 

Germany 

Hungary 













Different "tunnel" profiles in the end plate. New three element on the left vs old two element on the 

right. 





13.4 McLaren 

Running a dedicated high downforce and a new cooling package for this weekend, the car also sported 

revisions to its blown diffuser. Following Red bull, Williams and Mercedes, the diffuser sported a raised 

leading edge, allowing the exhaust to blow underneath open front of the diffuser for greater downforce. 

Revised rear underbody 

Since first introducing their exhaust-blown diffuser at Silverstone, McLaren have made many changes to 

its configuration. In this drawing you can see the reshaped section of underbody (red arrow) and also the 

different, lower position of the exhaust (highlighted in blue) being used on the MP4-25 in Hungary. 





13.5 Renault 

Renault’s extreme rear wing has a deep central “V” ducting air to a slot in the back of the wing 

Already running highly complex front and rear wings, Renault none the less further developed these part 

sin Hungary. The rear wing now sports an extreme W profile, the middle of the wing forming a deep V 

shape well below the usual line of the rear wing. Within this "V" is an inlet for the blown slot, the hollow 

main wing sections being clearly visible inside the "V". 

The depth of the wing the extra slot at the rear are aimed at creating a far steeper front wing, in order to 

gain more downforce, a necessity at Hungary. However deeper wings create more at the wing tips as the 

air spilling off the wing, form vortices which in turn induce drag, slowing top speed. Without an F-Duct 

Renault altered the outer sections of the wing to offset some of the pressure differences that creates 

these vortices. Therefore the outer 5cm of the wings span form a completely different profile, the flap 





section being much longer in comparison to the main plane. Reducing the load created by the wing and 

hence reducing the tendency to create drag. 

At the front the Valencia spec wing was slightly modified with narrower winglets and a small stay to 

support the winglet and endplate moving as the car runs over bumps and kerbs. 

The Hungaroring is one of the most demanding 

circuits on the calendar regarding downforce, 

and hence many teams introduce new 

components to improve the car's handling 

around the twisty track. Renault have one of 

the most obvious changes as it introduces a 

new rear wing, adding quite a bit of downforce 

to the car. The new device builds on the drop in 

the wing's centre and extends on that idea, now 

adding a small slot underneath the main wing. 

The most interesting bit of this configuration 

may well be the non-straight slot between the 

two main panels, which now are basically just 

one element with carefully design slot gap. As Renault still do not have an F-duct and while their plans on 

this are unclear, this is surely an attempt to fight back on the ever improving blown rear wings. 





New diffuser 

Old diffuser 





R30 – elongated to the rear engine cover at Hungary 

The floor exhausts were lengthened at Hungary, a change which also triggered the significant elongation 

to the rear of the sidepods – engine cover. The amount of the elongation that took place can be revealed 

by the fact that the new cover features a small cut (purple arrow) where it meets the upper suspension’s 

wishbone. 





R30 exhaust outlets configuration from Launch to Hungary 

Renault R30, launch – periscope exhausts 

Renault R30, as all modern Formula 1 cars, had initially periscope style exhausts, a configuration first 

seen at Ferrari F310B back in 1997. 





At Valencia Renault raced the exhaust blown diffuser system pioneered by Red Bull RB6. Renault’s 

unique design though features a metal plate (cover) bending inwards, behind the exhaust pipes acting as 

a venturi channel and two vertical fences to offer a better guide for hot air towards the diffuser. 

Valencia 

The design was further developed at Hungary with the sidepods and exhaust pipes elongating to the 

rear. As a consequence the thermal protective cover and the vertical inner fence were moved to the rear 

also. The metal cover is now spotted under the rear’s suspension wishbones. The reason why Renault 

moved the pipes to the rear might be because it is needed a stronger interaction between the hot 

emissions with the diffuser or because the longer exhaust pipes tune better with the engine or even 

both. 





13.6 Mercedes 

Having run their open front diffuser in Germany, it was decided to run the older blown diffuser for 

Hungary. The team were finding that the exhaust blowing directly on the leading edge of the diffuser was 

overheating the carbon fibre despite the heat reflective coating. With the result that the shape of the 

diffuser, which is critical to its aerodynamic performance was changing. Mercedes are understood to be 

seeking a further supply of glass-ceramic matrix carbon fibre, a material that unlike normal carbon fibre 

can withstand temperatures up to 1000c. However there are limited suppliers of this advanced material 

and even that material in extremely expensive and in short supply. 

Hungary front wing in detail 





13.7 Williams 

No major upgrades were detected on the Williams, although a new cooling outlet at the tail of the 

engine cover was run to cope with the low speeds and high temperatures of Hungary. Additionally, aero 

tests were carried out on Friday morning. Along similar lines to those of McLaren pre-season aero tests, 

the FW32 was fitted wit an array of pressure sensors in the sidepods undercut. These would map the 

airflow as it passes around the sidepod; this was probably conducted with a view towards their 2011 car. 






One of the last of the top teams to adopt a blown diffuser were Force India 

Have taken some time to react to the Blown diffuser trend, being the final Mercedes engine team to 

switch to low exhaust exits. Friday practice was used to evaluate the blown diffuser on Sutil’s car and the 

decision was made not to run the set up on either car from Saturday practice onward, while the team 

further tune and develop the set up. The VJM03's design was a simple take on the solution, the exhausts 

re-organised to create a low exit, the sidepods being reprofiled and gaining a bare carbon fibre cover 

over the exhaust pipework. 

While the diffuser was outwardly identical to the standard car, aside from extensive heat shielding 

largely in the form of silver reflective coatings on the suspension, diffuser, brake ducts and wing 

endplates. In its early guide at least the exhaust blows over the top of the diffuser and no attempt 

appears to have been made open up the front of the diffuser to pass the exhaust flow underneath. 

Despite the two week factory shut down the team expect to race the updated set up in Spa. 





With the expense of tooling the new exhausts, a dyno test for tuning the exhausts to the engine, the 

demand for five sets of diffusers and all the wind tunnel and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) 

programming, it could cost up to an estimated $1.5 million to introduce. 






Major developments at Toro Rosso, with a new diffuser and nose cone vanes (yellow) 

Following on from the front wing updates in Germany, the now independent team developed the Red 

Bull inspired STR05 further in Hungary. No longer following the Arian Newey concepts the car took 

inspirations from two the teams, namely Renault for the nose treatment and McLaren for the diffuser 

layout. Most visible was the revised nose cone, this took the form of bonded on vanes hanging vertically 

from the lower edges of the nose cone, similar the curtain-like features on the previous two Renaults 

cars. Equally the vented front wing endplate, which took Renaults slotted footplate idea, first raced in 

Germany was aided by an additional longitudinal vent on the footplate. 

At the rear Toro Rosso's third iteration of their diffuser was a major change away from the versions run 

previously this season. The separation and outlet shape of the upper and lower diffuser now takes a 

similar to McLarens rectangular design, even the addition of protruding section beneath the tail lamp are 

similar to McLarens ideas. However while the exit shape is similar the Toro Rosso has a far simpler upper 

deck arrangement, and the very wide set up joined to the beam wing as per the MP4-25. 

These changes are suggesting the teams own design group are finding their own directions away from 

those of Red Bull Technologies. Who, didn’t actually design the current car, but provided the design for 

the 2009 car from which its design is strongly based upon. Perhaps the 2011 Toro Rosso will be yet a 

further departure from their current design. 






Toro Rosso have introduced a new maximum-downforce front wing in Hungary. It features a vertical 

section (1) which creates a kind of skirt under the high shape of the standard nose. The new endplate, 

introduced in Hockenheim, has been revised to include a second horizontal slot (2), which better 'seals' 

this section to the ground. 





13.10 Lotus 

No major changes were introduced at Lotus, however the all carbon fibre suspension, earmarked fro this 

race to replace the Carbon over titanium suspension has been delayed and should be in place for Spa 

along with the final updates to chassis and aero. Although a Monza specific aero package has been 

developed due to the unique nature of the track. 




BELGIUM – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

14. BELGIUM – TECHNICAL REVIEW 







[Source: jamesallenonf1.com blog] 


F1 returned to one of its greatest tracks when the Spa circuit in Belgium hosted Round13. This is a track 

that has everything, slow hairpins and chicanes, long straights, fast turns and a lot of gradient changes. 

Despite the emphasis on the challenging turns Spa has become a low to medium downforce since the 

advent of the 2.4 litre engines and slick tyres. Most of the fast turns are at such a high speed that even 

relatively small wings can create the downforce to keep the car adhered to the track. While the slowest 

turns are at such a pace that wings are a smaller part of the grip equation. 

This year the ever present rain influenced nearly every session and perhaps prompted teams to run more 

downforce than they would have in the dry. 

Spa is also a very demanding track for engines, nearly every driver had a fresh engine and with the other 

power hungry track at Monza coming up next, we will be seeing most drivers near the end of the their 

engine allocation. Most drivers have now used six engines, leaving them two for the remaining six races. 

Following Spa both Ferrari drivers as well as Sebastian Vettel have just one fresh engine left, presuming 

they will use this one for Monza they will compete in the final four races with part-used engine or suffer 

grid penalties. Meanwhile, the Ferrari engined Sauber of Pedro de La Rosa is the only driver with all eight 

engines used. Early season unreliability will see de La Rosa picking the best of his engines to last the 

remaining five races. 

Following pressure from several team managers in Hungary, the FIA had new front wing deflection tests 

for Belgium. The test, which places a greater load on the outer tip of the front wing, was carried out over 

the course of the weekend and no team failed the new challenge. However it was visible that movement 

of the front wing was still evident as the cars accelerated to high speed and then braked. This was most 

obvious as Vettel chased Button in the race, leading them to crash and Button’s retirement. As Button 

moved left to right and back again in the braking area, Vettel simultaneously moved left. 

Through the course of the two cars manoeuvres Vettel’s front wing was exposed to clear air, Buttons 

wake and free air again. This change in airflow affected one side of the wing then the other made the 

entire front see-saw violently up and down around the two mounting pylons. While the wing was 

obviously subject to unusual aerodynamic conditions, the shear amount of movement was 

surprising. Certainly Vettel would have suffered aero balance shifts which may have contributed to his 

loss of control. A similar effect was visible as Webber closed on and crashed into Kovalainen in 

Valencia. Clearly flex may have some performance benefits but perhaps also some downsides. 





Revised floor flex test 

The FIA carry out load tests to check whether a car's floor flexes beyond the permitted 5mm (yellow 

highlighted area) under a 200kg load. The 

test, which uses a piston in the centre of 

the floor, was introduced at the 2007 

Spanish Grand Prix following the 

controversy surrounding Ferrari's 

'moveable' floor device. Stricter front-wing 

flex tests have been introduced here at Spa 

and at the next round in Italy a stricter 

floor test will be added. Whilst the same 

weight will be used, the test will be applied 

to the side of the floor too. It will also be 

prohibited to run a section of plank less than 100cm in length. 

Revised front-wing flex test 

The front wing must be no lower 

than 75mm above the reference 

plane, which is the lowest point of 

the car without the plank (yellow 

dotted line). To check compliance 

with this rule, prior to this weekend's 

Belgian Grand Prix, in scrutineering a 

load of 50kg was applied to the 

endplates (smaller red arrow), with a 

permitted flex of up to 10mm. After 

rival teams voiced suspicions that 

the front wings of Red Bull and 

Ferrari were flexing more than this at 

speed, the FIA has doubled the load applied in the test to 100kg, now measured in the middle of the 

wing's side section (larger red arrow), with a permitted flex of 20mm. Both Red Bull and Ferrari cleared 

scrutineering at Spa. 





14.2 McLaren 

For Spa the front wing was revised with a new endplate and a shortened cascade 

Rafts of small changes were made to the McLaren to suit the Spa circuit. The major change was revisions 

to the front wing assembly, with both the endplate and cascade being different. For the endplate the 

slots in its vertical face were changed, while the cascade was shortened to only reach the fence that 

divides the inner and outer parts of the wing. Both these changes would have been to reduce down force 

and drag, through a smaller wing area and improved flow around the front wheels. The team also ran the 

older specification wing with its simpler wing spans, for this wing the team still ran the full width 

cascade. 





Button’s Mc Laren was equipped with a modified Hungarian front wing version (which was by the way 

first launched at Silverstone) with the cascade winglets span to be reduced between the endplates and 

the additional vertical inner fences. This wing version offer both a better front grip and a respectably 

good top speed at long Spa straights because of the cascade planes length reduction (less drag). 





McLaren added a second slot to their floor 

Towards the rear, the floor ahead of the wheel gained a second slot, these slots aid the flow passing 

under the floor to pass around the rear tyres. Lastly the McLaren Mercedes engine note appeared rough 

when the car was on the overrun through turns. Most apparent at the slower turns, this is believed to be 

an engine mapping tweak aimed at maintaining exhaust flow even when the throttle is closed. This 

system was first apparent on the Red Bulls, who use the mapping in qualifying. 

As their blown diffuser needs exhaust flow to create downforce, when the car is slowing, the exhausts 

provide less flow, creating less downforce just when the car needs it. So they alter the engine mapping to 

maintain a more constant flow, without continuing to drive the wheels. 

Most probably the systems retard the ignition when the engine is on the overrun; this sees the air-fuel 

mixture burn in the exhaust rather than the cylinder, which creates a continuing stream of gasses 

through the exhaust. The downside is that this creates a huge amount of heat in the cylinder head and 

exhaust, not to mention burns additional fuel. 

Most teams are looking at this solution as Red bull have done for qualifying only and for limited use in 

the race to minimise the unreliability created by the heat and the need for additional weight in fuel to be 

carried to support the system. If McLaren and Mercedes have found a system that can be used through 

the race without fear of overheating issue then they will have a small advantage from the set up. 





14.3 Ferrari 

Ferrari made a major step with their car for spa, with a new diffuser as well as new rear wing. The 

diffuser was a development work stream long in development, but it seems the blown version of the 

diffuser was brought to the races first. With this new diffuser design they are catching up to where 

Renault, McLaren and red Bull have got to with their double diffusers. 

Although not visible when on track, their diffusers feature a much later inlet under the car that feeds 

into the upper deck of the diffuser. This larger inlet drives more flow through the diffuser to create more 

downforce. However to create a larger hole in the flat floor it needs to be partially masked by curved 

vanes inline with the flat floor. These meet the flat bottom rule as they are curved to the maximum 

allowed radius and do not create an opening visible from below. 

Externally the only visible changes are a slight alteration to the horizontal sections splitting the upper 

lower decks of the diffuser. To aid top speed on the long fast sections at spa, Ferrari had two wing 

specifications. The first was the usual tapered rear wing, with shallower sections towards the endplates. 

Massa preferred this wing to the newer format. This newer format sported an additional inlet in the 

main plane as exploited by many teams. The narrow 15cm inlet is ducting through an expanding hollow 

section inside the wing to feed a wider slot in the rear face of the wing. It was Alonso who preferred to 

race this format wing. 

In Belgium, Ferrari have been running 

a modified diffuser and floor, which 

are similar to the ones used by 

McLaren and Renault. The size of the 

longitudinal inlet is shown clearly by 

the amount of visible road surface 

(see area highlighted in yellow). 

There are two longitudinal fairings in 

order to respect the rule dimensions. 





Ferrari have raced a new version of their exhaust 

blown diffuser at Spa. The team did not change 

anything on it since the exhaust blowing 

principle was copied from Red Bull and 

introduced at Valencia. The team decided to 

learn it as they ran it, and now is the first update 

on the concept. As marked in the image, the 

profile of the lower and upper deck have been 

changed to improve downforce generation by 

means of the complex flow from the floor, the 

exhaust and around the sidepods. 









Ferrari have brought a new lower-downforce rear wing to Belgium, which will be used by Felipe Massa 

during qualifying and in the race. The 

revised endplates feature Red Bullinspired 

gills, while the wing's main 

profile has a smaller flap and no 

longer features a slot. 

Alonso's rear wing on the grid at Spa 

For qualifying and the race, held in changeable weather conditions, Ferrari ran two different 

specifications of rear wing. Fernando Alonso ran a slightly higher downforce wing, which was therefore 

more of a wet set up, while Felipe Massa ran the lower downforce example. Massa’s was the newer 

design and it featured different end plates with curved gills similar to Red Bull, no slot between elements 

and a smaller main wing element. Performance wise the differences were subtle but still noticeable. On 

the fastest laps in qualifying, Massa’s car was 2 km/h faster through the speed trap than Alonso’s and 

was a tenth of a second slower through the middle sector of the lap, which is a good indictor of 

downforce. 





Massa's rear wing on the Spa grid 

Both wings incorporate the drag reducing F Duct device, which showed its greatest advantage of the 

season so far around Spa. With the need for high downforce in the middle sector and good straight line 

speed on the two long straights in sectors one and two, cars equipped with F ducts could have it both 

ways and the device was worth half a second per lap here, a huge amount by F1 standards for a single 

component. Next time out on the high speed Monza circuit it is likely that the teams will not use the F 

Duct. As the elements of the rear wing will be so small, it’s hard to incorporate the device and the 

performance gain is small in any case. 









Front wing – back to the Canadian spec for Belgium 

Ferrari reverted back to the low downforce Canadian spec for Spa. 









14.4 Red Bull 

This new low drag beam wing was tried but not raced in the wet conditions 

Red Bull reported no developments to the front wing, adding they were running the same front wings 

from Hungary and successfully passed the revised FIA deflection tests. With the uncertain weather, 

Friday was used to trial a new beam wing, but this was discarded. The beam wing had cut down sections 

the trailing towards the endplates. This was probably a low drag set up aimed for the low downforce 

requirement of the track in dry conditions. As the weather affected all three days running the team stuck 

with their usual beam wing. 









14.5 Renault 

Renault were innovative in the ducting of their F-Duct 

At Spa Renault finally brought their development of the f-duct to a race weekend. Like the other teams 

catching up with McLaren, they needed to find a way to route airflow into the ducting then into the 

cockpit and rear wing. Their solution is certainly innovative and surprisingly tidy. Unable to alter their 

monocoque the team have fitted the ducting around the roll structure. Starting with the high pressure 

inlets, these are creating by two snorkels either side of the roll hoop, these are formed by the engine 

cover and are not bonded into the roll structure. 

They then converge into the duct in the truncated shark fin, the fluid switch sits approximately behind 

the “HP” logo on the tail fin, this slits the duct into three, one that feed the rear wing when the system is 

engaged, then another provides the alternative route for the airflow curving down and exiting either side 

of the rear wing support. 

Cleverly the control duct that the driver closes to turn on the system is created by a rectangular duct 

threading down from the fluid switch to around the engine and up over the cockpit side padding before 

entering the side of the cockpit by the steering wheel. 

To achieve this routing the duct is actually formed over the top of the driver’s headrest, from a front 

view you can see the left-hand headrest is slightly higher than the one on the right. By doing this Renault 

have created an acceptably large duct and not altered their monocoque. Renault have chosen to exit the 





duct into the main plane rather than the flap, the bulbous duct clearly exit the shark fin and curves down 

to enter the wing, the team preferring not to extend their shark fin Red Bull style all the way to the rear 

wing. 

Their use of the F-duct proved so successful that they race the device and attributed at least half of their 

performance improvement to the F-duct. The balance of their performance improvement was probably 

wit the slightly revised diffuser and changes to the way it’s blown by the exhausts. 

Renault’s F-duct system is operated by the driver’s left hand. Inside the cockpit and behind the driver’s 

left shoulder there is small rectangular hole connecting the system to the driver’s operating control area. 

If we take a closer look on the cockpit area behind the driver we can a see that the introduction of the 

system caused the left rear cockpit wall to rise up a little so as to fit the system’s tube. 





The system itself receives air from two little holes placed on either side of the airbox (1). When the 

system is activated by the driver at straights the air entering the holes mentioned before, feeds the main 

plane of the rear wing (2), which is connected to the system via a small inclined downwards tube hosed 

inside the engine cover. When the system is inactive the air then flows out and under the wing’s profile 

(3) via another tube (black colored) placed further below the first one. Nevertheless the exiting flow 

from the black lower tube is directed above the extra winglet mounted on the wing’s beam so as not to 

block the airflow onto it. 

A clever evolution of the system would be to sent the 

exiting air, by first speeding it up using a Venturi effect 

inside the tube, directly onto the winglet to maximize the 

downforce production. 





An interesting feature is the carbon strut which connect the engine with the monocoque. This will make the whole car more stiff in torsion, and is 

taking stress/load off the engine, which will be benefical for less internal friction loses. So this engine is "just" semi-stressed. 

















R30 – new more complicated engine cover at Belgium 

The new engine cover presented at Spa, alongside with the debut of the F-suct system, has a new upper 

part which can be separated from the rest cover body to offer more freedom to mechanics to enter 

inside the cover and reach the engine and F-duct system internals. 

The F-duct’s twin inlets are placed on airbox sides while at the rear two extra outlet tubescan be seen. 





14.6 Mercedes 

While other teams have successfully raced with their exhausts blowing inside the diffuser for several 

races, Mercedes are still struggling with their second generation blown diffuser. Exhaust heat is causing 

problems with the carbon fibre of the diffuser; different glass ceramic composites and coating have 

failed to prevent the 800c exhaust heat deforming the diffusers aerodynamic shape. 

As Mercedes have opened the front of the diffuser allow the exhaust to blow above and below the floor, 

the exhaust heat hits the leading edge of the diffuser, which is far more aggressive than it passing 

parallel over the bodywork. Ross Brawn confirms there is more work to do achieve a complete solution. 

Despite being the factory Mercedes and perhaps because of the heat issues with the diffuser, the team 

did not appear to use any form of Overrun mapping as McLaren have done at Spa. While the additional 

flow would have been useful in creating downforce, the additional heat from the exhaust would only 

exacerbate their problems with the carbon fibre overheating. 




ITALY – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

15. ITALY – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








Monza remains as much of an enigma on the F1 Calendar as Monaco does being the polar opposite of 

the Monegasque street track, as Monza is largely about top speed, heavy braking and shuffling around 

slow chicanes. This year the threat of rain before the weekend fortunately gave way to sunny weather, 

leaving the teams with a tricky choice on set up. Monza rewards top speed, but still the need to slow 

down to round the few turn’s means some wing is needed to gain the ideal laptime. 

This year teams had to choose between an ultra low drag set up or a moderate to high drag set up, in 

some cases aided by an F-duct. The variety of solutions created a large span in speed trap figures, with 

low drag F-ductless cars being perhaps the fastest one lap cars, but the stability of slightly more 

downforce, aided by an f-duct appeared the ideal set up for race day. Other Monza specific technical 

considerations for the teams were managing brake temperatures and springing the car soft enough to 

cope with kerbs while stiff enough to keep the car stable at high speed. 

At the Italian race this year the FIA introduced new tests to prevent teams deflecting their front splitter. 

This is the floor section that sits exposed beneath the race monocoque. Having this section hinge and 

bend upwards allows the teams to run lower front ride heights to gain more front downforce. Although 

subject to a 100Kg load test already it’s been thought teams have still been able move the splitter while 

meeting the scrutineer’s tests. Now the leading edge of the floor must be tested at 200Kg and then 

additional test places a lesser load 10cm either side of the cars centreline. 





Additional floor load test 

The FIA carry out load tests to ascertain whether a car's floor flexes beyond the permitted 5mm under a 

200kg load. The test, which uses a piston in the centre of the floor (see inset), was introduced at the 

2007 Spanish Grand Prix following 

the controversy surrounding 

Ferrari's 'moveable' floor device. At 

Monza the sport's governing body 

has introduced an even stricter test, 

which sees the same weight also 

applied to the side of the floor, 

100mm from the centre line (see 

main illustration). 

New regulation - plank length 

At Monza, the FIA have introduced a new rule which means it is now prohibited to run a section of plank 

less than 1000mm in length. The 

plank is a hard wooden strip (also 

known as a skid block) fitted down 

the middle of a car's underside (see 

red arrow). This regulation is 

designed to prevent teams from 

running 'articulated' planks that are 

made up of multiple pieces. 





15.2 Ferrari 

Ferrari used elements of their Spa package to form their Monza set up. Ferrari aimed for a medium drag 

set up and to achieve this also tried running without the F-duct in Friday practice. In the end the f-duct 

was retained albeit with modified ducting leading to the spa rear wing. At the front the wing has been 

altered with a completely straight leading edge, the win no longer drops down fro the neutral centre 

section. In this format the car was amongst the fastest cars on the straights. Another change for Monza 

was a slightly modified sidepod this now allows for a cooling panel towards the front top of the sidepod, 

similar the solution McLaren used. While wasn't used in Monza to reduce drag, it may be fitted with an 

opening at the upcoming races. Lastly Ferrari retained a single stay on the front edge of their splitter, the 

vertical metal blade connecting the floor to the car appeared unchanged from previous versions, but its 

likely that the detail of how the stay is affixed both ends has been altered to suit the rules clarification. 

Ferrari's Fernando Alonso and Felipe 

Massa ran different rear aero packages 

on their cars at the last round in Spa. 

But at Monza, the Italian team are 

running the same low-downforce 

package on both F10s. The rear wing is 

fitted with a revised F-duct, which 

features a much smaller pipe inside the 

engine cover. In addition, the 

endplates no longer have gills and the 

main plane and flap have a smaller 

chord. 

Both Ferraris are also a running revised front 

wing at Monza as part of the team's lowdownforce 

package for this circuit. It features 

an almost straight main plane (2), and the 

main flap (1) and upper flap (3) both have a 

far lower angle of incidence than seen at 

most tracks. 





Two rear wing specs for Monza 

Monza was a critical race for Ferrari’s and Alonso’s championship hopes so the team decided to bring 

two rear wing versions. The first one of higher downforce which was tested during free practice sessions 

can be regarded as a modified Canadian spec with a new V shaped second plane raised at its centre(1) 

and both planes to be raised up close to the endplates (2). 

The second version of lower downforce which was raced by both drivers, had a simpler shape and 

endplates lacking shark gills (3). Both versions were combined with the Ferrari’s rear wing stalling system 

in an attempt to increase further car’s top speed at very long Monza straights. 





15.3 McLaren 

Despite being the pioneers of the F-duct McLaren were largely undecided on whether to use it at Monza. 

Notwithstanding its gain aero efficiency by boosting top speed or allowing more wings to run for the 

same top speed, it seems the decision was about going for one extreme or another in setup. 

So the drivers tried both ultra low downforce or the much higher f-ducted downforce packages, in the 

end their strategy was split depending on their driver preference, with driving style and race strategy 

being the deciding factor. Hamilton ran a very low aspect rear wing, in doing so being amongst the 

fastest cars in a straight line, this set up probably gave the fastest laptime for a single lap. With 

Hamilton’s preference for a car that slides and moves around a lot, plus the chance to go for pole 

position, this strategy appeared to be well suited to him wereas Button with a driving preference for 

keeping the wheels inline and a race orientated strategy, went for a very large rear wing complete with 

drag busting F-duct. 

With more grip from the extra downforce Buttons aims were two fold, boost his confidence with a 

grippier car and save the tyres on race with less sliding. For Button he had a 10-15kph speed deficit to his 

rivals, only the cars ability to run fast through the Lesmo bends kept him from being vulnerable from 

being passed on the following main straight. 

In the end both strategies failed, Hamilton’s due to his poor qualifying lap putting him further down the 

grid. While Buttons forecast of his rivals suffering tyre degradation in the race proved unfounded as even 

the softer option tyre could last the entire race without major loss in laptime. 

With hindsight an intermediate strategy of a slightly less high downforce package on a f-ducted rear wing 

may have brought a better result, this more conservative strategy may have been a safer bet for a team 

battling the championship at a track known to be weak one for its rivals Red bull. 

Technically McLarens developments this weekend were the non F-duct top body and rear wing. So 

integral to the cars design is the F-duct this year, that this is the first time the mp4-25 has been seen 

without the shark fin, snorkel and internal duct work. It is perhaps surprising that the team opted for a 

simple low line (i.e. non shark fin) engine cover at track where straight lien stability is at a premium. In 

response to the splitter test and rules clarification, the McLaren splitter now runs without any form of 

stay, previously the team ran a simple blade like single stay. 





It’s again confusing to understand how McLaren made a decision to remove reinforcement to the splitter 

at a time when the test demands a far stiffer set 

up. Perhaps McLaren previous floor had some 

ability to hinge at its rear mounting and then be 

supported by the stay. The solution to meet the 

new rules was to mount the splitter more solidly 

at its rear and no longer require a stay at the 

front. McLaren team mates Jenson Button and 

Lewis Hamilton decided to run different set-ups 

for the Monza race. Button used the F-duct and 

the Spa-spec rear wing, which features quite a big 

flap. Hamilton decided to use a very lowdownforce 

rear wing, shown here, with last year's 

end plates, and didn't use the F-duct. On Saturday 

the set-up gave Hamilton a 14km/h advantage 

over Button, with the qualifying speed trap 

recording 344.3 and 329.5 respectively for the 

duo. 

As Monza is by far the lowest downforce circuit 

on the racing calendar, teams usually develop 

new front and rear wings to achieve higher top 

speeds. As did McLaren, bringing a new front 

wing with significantly less frontal surface and 

without an F-duct, a first for McLaren this year. 

After both drivers tested a variety of setups, 

including a change of rear wings, only Lewis 

Hamilton decided to use it beyond Friday 

practices. Jenson Button meanwhile opted for 

the higher downforce setup with a rear wing 

similar to the one used at Turkey. The strategy 

differences are interesting, as Hamilton is 

among the top three at the speed traps, while Button is only quicker than both HRT cars. The latter 

though is second on the grid, 3 places up to teammate Hamilton. And while top speeds may be a concern 

for last year's champion, his team is hoping that the higher downforce will make sure the option tyres 

last longer while others may start struggling after 10 to 15 laps. 













15.4 Red Bull 

In contrast to their rivals the Red Bull appeared largely unchanged for Monza, in both their moderate 

downforce aero set up and their revised splitter. Through the speed traps Red bulls were in the bottom 

half of the timesheets for qualifying but some how gained 10kph for the race, placing them far more 

respectably toward the top of the speed trap figures. Having been the source of the splitter allegations 

and with the team’s denials they have anything special in their splitter. It was perhaps no surprise the 

Red bull splitter set up appeared identical in Monza. With the carbon fibre stay at the front of the 

splitter. However it was reported the RB6 only just failed its first deflection test and was modified 

overnight to pass the test the next day. 





15.5 Renault 

Renault made these “V” cuts into the frotn wign for brake cooling 

Like most other teams Renault opted to a moderate downforce package, however both its front and rear 

wings were unusual in having shaped trailing edges. On their front wing the wing sported a deep "V" 

shaped cut out. As this missing section was ahead of the front brake ducts, its possible that this 

alteration may have been to provide more airflow to he brakes, but equally the shape would produce 

vortices that could airflow around the inside the of the front wheel. Equally hard to fathom is the reverse 

effect on the rear wing, where the wing had small triangular sections extending front he trailing edge 

where the wing met the endplate and slot gap separator. 





In Monza, Renault have been running a 

new front wing. This is based on the 

previous version, but it has been simplified 

with no upper flaps and a multiple 

endplate section (bottom arrow). The 'V' 

cut in the main flap (top arrow) creates a 

kind of vortex, which energises the airflow 

under the car's central section. 





Apart from its new front wing, Renault also 

brought a new rear wing to Monza. While at 

basically remained the same, the upper panel 

was cut out at its trailing edge, apart from the 

attachment points to the endplates as well as 

the midpoint of the wing. Also marked with 

arrows is the F-duct exit which blows air when 

the stalling device is not operating. 

Interestingly, this is the only air exhaust one can 

see on the Renault from behind, in sharp 

contrast with Red Bull. Renault have designed 

their sidepods to be long and fairly big, even at 

the back, so that all hot air from within the pods 

are blown onto the diffuser. This design is particularly interesting for rear downforce as the hot air can 

help energise the diffuser's decks. As said, Red Bull have taken a completely different approach with 

extremely narrow sidepods, but the RB6 features a large opening below the F-duct exit to get rid of its 

hot air. 





15.6 Williams 

As a drag saving measure Williams made these indents into the rear wing 

Williams like Renault chose to alter the trailing edge of its rear wing to manage drag, however 

contrasting Renaults approach Williams made their wing cut-in at the joins to the endplate and slot gap 

separators. In Williams case their low drag solution, used low downforce and no f-duct. While their 

splitter was outwardly unchanged, since their removal of the snow plough bargeboard, their splitter has 

had thick cross section almost to the leading the edge of the floor. Thus no stay is employed to stiffen 

the structure. 





15.7 Mercedes 

To meet the new deflection test, Mercedes use a “V” shaped floor stay 

At a circuit with few challenging corners, where the car requires little downforce. The problematic layout 

and aerodynamics of the W01 were nullified to allow the car to be competitive once more. 

Aiding the car cars speed in a straight lien was the Mercedes F-duct, this device was originally passive, in 

that it uses increasing airspeed to activate the stalling effect, without driver interaction.However, in 

recent races the drivers have been seen covering a cockpit duct to stall the wing, even though not 

external routing of the duct to the rear wing is evident. It’s believed the F-duct routes to the rear wing 

alongside the engine and gearbox, through the beam wing and up the endplates. Thus the entire system 

of high pressure feed and fluid switch must be accommodated within the rear wing. Despite the 

evidence that an F-duct is being used, this solution seems unlikely as only a very small duct could be 

routed through a tortuous path to control the rear wing. Perhaps the system overcomes the duct design 

with a very high pressure feed from the inlet near the front suspension. 

To meet the revised floor test, Mercedes creates a novel "V" shaped splitter support. As the test applies 

the load at points up to 10cm from the cars centre line, Mercedes have designed a stay the aims to 

accept this offset load. 






As well as trying an F-Duct the STR5 raced a blown diffuser for the first time 

Having completed a straight-line test at Vairano the week before the race, Toro Rosso brought yet more 

fruits of their own development programme. No longer using Red Bull technologies as their development 

resource, STR now create the entire car and its new parts from their base in Faenza. After recent major 

updates it was a surprise to see such a large step brought to the car this weekend, with both a blown 

diffuser and f-duct tested on Friday. Their f-duct follows common practice with a high pressure feed 

taken from behind the roll hoop and a venting duct exiting under the rear wing. In a stylish solution STR 

moulded the high pressure inlet into the leading edge of the shark fin and unlike Ferraris similar placed 

inlet, left the duct fully exposed and not split by the shark fin extending forwards to the roll hoop. where 

a the f-duct was on tried on Friday, their blown diffuser was brought and raced without the apparent 

heating or stability issues other teams have suffered. In essence the design follows Red Bulls lead with a 

slash cut exhaust exiting close the bodywork. While the driver controlled f-duct will need to be dropped 

for next year, the blown diffuser can carry over to the 2011 car, providing a useful boost in low speed 

downforce. 

A with McLaren Toro Rosso deleted their front splitter stay and still met the deflection test. Their 

previous stay was externally similar to Red bulls design and now the floor is unsupported at its leading 

edge. 





15.9 Sauber 

Sauber raced revised front and rear wings to save drag at Monza 

As one of the ultra low downforce teams Saubers ran new wings both ends. Their frotn wing uses much 

of the normal wings structure, but the inboard ends of the flap were feathered as Renault have adopted 

this year. While the rear wings low aspect ratio see’s the top edge of the wing far below that maximum 

height allowed for rear wings. 





15.10 Virgin 

As is normal for the tail end teams at Monza, virgin opted for an ultra low downforce set up, their front 

and rear wing being perhaps the smallest on the grid. With a very flat two-piece rear wing and a front 

wing with the flaps trimmed to a much smaller plan area. While the other visible development was to 

use two small stays to support the leading edge of the floor and meet the offset-load deflection test. 

Virgin Racing have still not given up on development of their 2010 car, and as a result they brought a 

new rear and front wing to the high speed circuit. While the rear wing is still simple and has less drag 

through its reduced panel surface, the front wing is a major change. At least it is for Virgin, one of the 

new teams. It is well known that Wirth Research and Virgin aim to do cost effective development and 

only change what gives the most benefit. The front wing endplates are therefore retained, except for the 

removal of a small winglet on the inside of the plates. The wing's panels though are much smaller, with 

the largest surface mainly located in front of the wheels, a crucial decision in trying to limit drag from the 

rotating wheels. The cut of the panel also allows more clean airflow into the brake duct, another crucial 

performance differentiator at Italy. 





15.11 Lotus 

Lotus matched Virgins set up and developments for Monza, with a very flat rear wing and trimmed front 

wing flaps. Then using twin floor stays to meet the off-set load test. One new feature is revised winglets 

fitted to the outside edge of the front wing endplates. Initial a vertical turning vane; these are now much 

more curved "r" shaped devices. 





15.12 HRT 

Where as every other team had new or modified wings for the low drag demands of the Monza track, 

HRT were the exception. No longer having Dallara contracted to develop the car, the team are without 

the resources to design, test and make new parts. Equally the cologne based team are not adequately 

resourced to modify the wings in a safe manner. Thus they were forced to run their standard wing sets 

backed off to minimum downforce settings. 




SINGAPORE – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

16. SINGAPORE – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








Singapore hosts a street race that compares closely to the needs found in Monaco. Marina Bay is all 

about downforce and as it marks the start of the final season string of flyaway races, the teams used this 

race to produce their last major updates to the cars. Developments will still continue beyond this race, 

but the logistics of getting large components out to the races mean that the remaining changes are likely 

to be small add-ons rather than the developments seen in Singapore. 

With the tracks many turns, teams turned to Monaco spec wings and add-on winglets for grip. Despite 

the reasonably long straights, many teams opted to run without an F-duct, preferring to ensure their rear 

wing did not have air from the f-duct bleed underneath the wing and lose downfroce. Equally Singapore 

is a hard track on brakes and teams fitted their largest brake ducts, Renault and McLaren made efforts to 

ensure airflow off the front wing reached the brake ducts. 





16.2 McLaren 

McLaren’s front end was revised with dramatic new cascades and a second snowplough under 

the nose itself (yellow) 

After disappointment in recent races, McLaren arrived in Singapore with an updated car made up of new 

front wing treatments and a simplified diffuser. Their new front wing is based on the Silverstone wing 

with its split inner and outer spans. While the flaps and endplates remained similar, the cascade 

arrangement and the undernose fin had been changed. These changes were a last minute development, 

originally part of the planned Suzuka update, but instead were rushed over in Jonathan Neales hand 

baggage to Marina Bay. Where the old iteration of the wing used a single large curved cascade sitting 

above the wing, the Singapore spec split this into two matching the main wing underneath. The outer 

section was affixed to the wings endplate and features a louvered endplate similar to that used for rear 

wings. This reduces the vortex created by the high pressure above the wing, which provides less 

disruption to the airflow around the inner face of the wheel. 

The inner section of cascade largely follows the shape of the old element, but is now mounted on curved 

section sprouting up from the split in the main wing. These new cascades are probably a further step in 

dividing the flow that passes around the front tyre, possibly even improving flow the front brake ducts, 

which sit behind the split in the cascades. 

Almost unseen and largely unnoticed was the new snow plough section fitted under the nose, which was 

revised for this race. A second element has been added in between the main snow plough and the nose 





cone above it. This development was probably aimed at creating more downfroce, although the flow 

trailing from the device may also aid flow around the sidepods. 

At the rear McLaren tried the diffuser without the complex arched fences in the lower middle section, 

these first appeared after the blown diffuser was introduced and may be a sing that the exhausts effect 

on the diffuser is being better managed upstream. 





Singapore Front Wing Analysis 


(September23, 2010) 

McLarens Singapore Front Wing Cascade Treatment 

The cascade split aids airflow around the outside and inner face of the tyre 





























16.3 Ferrari 

Changes to the Ferrari are certainly suiting the recent circuits, as both the Monza and Singapore updates 

were successful. However Ferrari are slowing the development to the F10 in preparation for the 2011 

car. Small changes may still make it to the F10, but no major items are now expected in the forthcoming 

races. Changes were made to the floor and the front wing endplate for Marina Bay. Only the endplate 

was visible externally, with the vane mounted on the footplate being shifted further back to 

approximately mid way along the endplate. 

The Ferrari drivers had three 

different front wings to choose from 

on Friday at Marina Bay - a Monacospec, 

a Silverstone-spec and a new 

Singapore-spec. Felipe Massa tested 

the new one, but spent more time on 

the Monaco version with its single 

flap. Fernando Alonso alternated 

between the Silverstone and 

Singapore specs, which differ only in 

the small fin on the outside of the 

endplate, which has been moved 

backwards by around 8cm. Both 

drivers went on to qualify and race 

with the new wing. Ferrari also have 

a new floor, revised in the tea-tray 

section. 





16.4 Red Bull 

In qualifying and the race in Singapore, Red Bull used a new diffuser, modified both in the tea-tray 

section at the front (not shown) and 

in the critical area in front of the rear 

tyres. Here a bigger duct, angled 

more away from the longitudinal, is 

an attempt to better manage the 

airflow to the top of the diffuser's 

side section. Slightly different 

exhaust positions mean the pipes are 

always blowing under and inside the 

diffuser's side channels. 

Red Bull produced a double blown rear wing for Singapore, the slot fed by the bulged leading edge 

inlet provides more downforce 

Announcing they will bring developments to every remaining race, Red Bull are pressing hard to maintain 

their pace. Singapore brought changes in three areas of the car: the front wing, the splitter and the rear 





wing. Firstly a small development to the merged wing endplate design, saw an additional slot put into 

the flap section near the opening in the endplate. Previously the Red Bull wing could have been 

described as a 3 element wing in its mid section and a two element profile towards the endplate. This 

latest change makes the wing three elements at the endplate, to allow greater angle of attack and less 

chance of stalling. 

Having said that their splitter and stay were largely unchanged for the new deflection tests at Monza, at 

Marina bay we saw a revised splitter and stay arrangement on the RB6. The splitter gained a new front 

profile, complete with curious bulges atop the leading edge of the splitter. Plus the stay was also revised 

being more like a simple rod, than the flat plate that had previously been used. 

Such are the high ride heights for this street circuit, the rear facing front Camera showed now evidence 

of the splitter grounding excessively under braking. The splitter changes were also allied to revisions to 

the floor ahead of the rear tyres, with the two scoops being replaced one larger angled scoop. 

While the last change to the rear was picked up on by several rival team principals in interviews over the 

weekend. Red Bull now have produced a wing blown not only by the f-duct, but also by a large bulged 

inlet at the front of the main plane. Whereas the F-duct aims to stall the wing and reduce downforce, 

this new inlet feeds a full width slot on the rear of the wing to allow more downfroce to be created. A 

similar solution is also employed on the flap which sports a simple 15cm slot. This solution has been used 

by many teams, notably McLaren, Renault and Mercedes. 

Red Bull have brought a new front wing to Singapore, based on the one they introduced at Silverstone, 

which features a low position for the 

television cameras. As well as the two 

vertical slots to the rear of the 

endplate, there is an additional 

vertical slot at the front of the 

endplate to avoid the creation of a 

vortex when it's working in 

conjunction with the planes and the 

endplate itself. For qualifying and the 

race, however, both Sebastian Vettel 

and Mark Webber decided to use the 

original Silverstone wing. 





The rod holding the splitter now is now very slim ..and surely only able to work in tension. 













16.5 Renault 

Again Renault produced a revised front wing, this time the slightly narrower front wing that creates a 

larger flat footplate section outboard of the wing. The usual "r" shaped vane fitted in to the footplate, 

was revised to create a much more curved vane, with a distinct wing shape to the upper section. 

















16.6 Mercedes 

Mercedes finally exploited the space under the chassis for turning vanes 

Although Ross Brawn continues to be optimistic about the 2011 cars development, the W01 still received 

more updates this weekend. With the troublesome open fronted blown diffuser being raced, after 

previous versions suffered from overheating problems, a new development was the addition of 

bargeboards to the space under the nose. Although bargeboards were largely outlawed under the 

revised 2009 aero rules, there remains space under the raised chassis between the front wheels for a 

high mounted pair to be fitted. Mercedes are one of the few teams not to exploit this area up until now. 

There new vanes are mounted on "r" shaped struts under the nose, they are probably too high to affect 

underfloor airflow, but will probably aid airflow through the sidepods undercut to provide higher 

pressure over the diffuser. 





16.7 Williams 

For the FW32 there was a revised front wing and cascade arrangement 

A strong end to the season saw Williams bring yet more updates to the FW32, in Singapore this included 

a new floor for Barrichello (Hulkenberg gets his in Suzuka) and a new front wing arrangement. Retaining 

the normal main wing and endplate, its again the cascade that’s been revised as well as the inboard 

section of wing. The cascade largely follows the shape of the previous version, but is now supported by 

the turning vane mounted to the wings footplate, then the inboard wing section has the Renault 

feathered shape. These triangular shaped wings create downforce, but this load is decreased towards 

the thinner outer sections, which produces less disruption to the airflow around the wheel, compared 

wing tip vortex produced by a constant wing section. 

Williams arrived in Singapore with a completely new front-wing assembly, which is quite similar to 

Renault's solution. Compared to the older 

version (top drawing), the new front wing 

(bottom drawing) features several 

differences. There is a more pronounced 

upward sweep of the outer lower wing, just 

inboard of the endplate. While the former 

small vertical fence at the outer edge of the 

endplate has gone (1, upper), the upper 

flap section now features an extension with 

a small endplate outside the main endplate 

(1, lower). It is all designed to help the tyre 

act like a diffuser, sucking air from the front 

wing to improve its efficiency. There are 

also two new flaps in the central section (2) 

and the main plane twists upwards (3). 






Once again they tried their F-duct in practice, but chose not to run it in the race. The drivers control duct 

could be seen within the left hand side of the cockpit, the duct exiting in a circular hole near the steering 

wheel. Then the duct then routes down under the seat to pass back through the monocoque to the fluid 

switch behind the roll hoop, which controls the flow the rear wing slot. 




JAPAN – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

17. JAPAN – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








For the Formula One teams, the Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka presents one of the toughest challenges 

of all for their cars. As one of the most technical tracks on the calendar, the figure eight Suzuka circuit is 

a classic. With several long fast turns, a slow chicane and a reasonable straight, the track has it all, 

however, specifically it’s the long turns that make Suzuka such a challenge for driver and car alike. 

As with several races at this track, the weekend was interrupted by extreme weather, rain over the 

opening days cut short dry running and with the race expected to be hot and dry, this lost set up time 

was critical. 





17.2 Red Bull 

Red bull had a new delta shaped beam wing and we can also see the slot for the F-duct (yellow) 

In Japan the two Red Bull drivers ran two different front wings, two different diffusers and the same new 

rear wing the team introduced at the last 

round in Singapore. This featured an F- 

duct directed on to the main plane (red 

arrow), in a similar way to the one 

featured on the Renault. A new feature 

was the beam wing, with a delta shape in 

the middle. 





A further development of recent endplates sees yet more slots made into its side 

Continuing to press with their aero programme, Red Bull brought revised front and rear wings to Japan. 

Their rear wing was a development of the one seen in Singapore, with both the F-duct blowing into the 

main plane and with the extra blown slot. From the rear the profusion of slots in the back of the RB6 

wing is clear to see. The team have a 15cm slot on the flap, then the normal slot in between the two 

wing elements. 

Then the F-duct curved slots (yellow) and the blown slot below it. In theory the F1 regulations allow for 

just one slot between the elements, but interpretation of the wording of the rules means that an 

unlimited amount of openings in the one side of the wing is possible as long as the slots on pass through 

the middle 15cm of the wing. 

With the upper rear wing remaining the same, it was the beam wing below that was altered. Similar to 

the Spa beam wing this gained a pronounced "V" shape the centre portion of the wing. 

At the front wing development progressed with a new endplate, which gains several new slots along its 

side. These accelerate and divert air around the front wheel. Finally the team made the switch from low 

slung brake calipers to more normal vertical position on the uprights. 

It’s been reported that the change in position was to improve brake cooling, which Red Bull have 

suffered with at several races this year. It’s thought the old positioning was also beneficial for lower 

centre of gravity, but the caliper position also affects the loads being passed into the upright and 





wishbone. With the change in Japan Red Bull may well have had new wishbones and a possible geometry 

change, as well as the new uprights and brake ducts. 

After several reliability issues, Red Bull's chief 

technical officer Adrian Newey has changed the 

positioning of the RB6's front brake calipers. 

Instead of the horizontal position, which lowered 

the suspension's centre of gravity, he's moved 

the front calipers back to the more standard 

vertical position. The previous positioning had 

led to occasional mechanical failure due to 

greater movement of the brake pistons, pads and 

discs. This was a change planned for 2011, but 

the team took the decision to run with it for 

qualifying and the race in Japan. 





RB6 exhaust development from Spain to Japan 

Spain 

At Spain further modifications took place not only at the exhaust outlet shape and length but also to the 

area around them. The new outlets of reduced length were cut of vertical at their end and were 

relocated a bit outer from their original placement (bulgy car bodywork around them). Furthermore the 

exhausts blow inside a channel which offers a better guidance of the hot emissions towards the diffuser. 

Canada 

At Canada the exhaust outlet length was reduced further being now barely visible and almost completely 

covered by the car bodywork. This version is being used since the Japanese GP 





17.3 Ferrari 

The team announced it had run new aero parts on Friday. Hidden away beneath the car one small 

change was a revised splitter. This gains a flat ridge running along its length to help meet the offset 

deflection test introduced at short notice before Singapore. This isn’t likely to be a performance part, as 

Ferrari announced they are no longer developing the F10. 

In Japan Ferrari are using a slightly modified version of the diffuser they introduced at August's Belgian 

Grand Prix. A small omega-shaped wing (black arrow) has been added on top of the deformable 

structure to boost downforce slightly. The front and rear wings being used at Suzuka are virtually the 

same as those run by Ferrari at the last round in Singapore, but with some small changes to the front 

wing's second flap. 

























17.4 McLaren 

McLaren followed several other teams with a F-duct blowing the main plane of the wing 

Again running their complex split front wing, it was the f-duct rear wing that was changed during Friday 

practice. Both drivers tried this new development, which reroutes the f-duct into the main plane of the 

rear wing, rather than the flap. McLaren have blown the slot in the flap since the f-ducts introduction. 

However Saubers f-duct which soon followed ducted flow into the main plane, Renault and subsequently 

Red Bull have followed this route. It’s believed that using a slot in the main plane to stall the wing, is 

more effective as the flow breaks up sooner, reducing drag even further than by stalling the flap. 

As both versions of the wing were run, the new wing was noticeable as the shark fin stopped short of the 

wings flap, allowing the full sponsor’s logo to be visible. After Hamilton’s FP1 crash his wing was wrecked 

and new parts were hand couriered to the track from their technical centre in England. However the 

team felt the old wing was better and the drivers did not complete any further running with the new 

wing. 





The new aero package introduced by McLaren in Japan included a revised version of the Singapore front 

wing, new longer exhausts, a new 

engine cover and a new rear wing. 

The team also changed the way their 

F-duct worked, as the new version 

blows on to the main plane (blue 

arrow, main picture) rather than the 

flap (blue arrow, inset). The team 

only had two sets of this new rear 

wing, so when Lewis Hamilton 

crashed during Friday practice and 

damaged it there was no spare and 

he reverted to the standard rear 

wing in the afternoon. On Saturday, 

after a plane and helicopter ride, a 

new rear wing arrived at Suzuka, but 

after not completing any running in 

the rain-hit third practice the team 

opted to use the standard version (inset) in qualifying and the race. The new wing also had angled gills 

like the Red Bull, rather than horizontal gills. 





Analysis: New F-duct for Suzuka 


(October 8, 2010) 

In preparation for the final races, McLaren have developed another iteration of their F-duct rear wing. 

The new version places the stalling slot onto the rear face of the main plane of the rear wing, where the 

previous versions had all placed the slot on the rear face of the flap. This is a subtle change and effects 

the way the wing stalls to create improve aero efficiency (i.e. more straight-line speed, or more 

downforce for a given top speed). 





F-ducts work as they reduce the drag created by the rear at speed, this drag limit’s the top speed the car 

can achieve for a downforce level. The more downforce the wing makes, the more drag is created and 

hence the lower the top speed. Although a larger wing creates more frontal area and hence presents 

more of an obstruction to the airflow, it is in fact the drag induced the unseen air spilling off the wing 

that’s creates most of the rear wings drag. In fact an F1 wing despite looking so streamlined creates 

more drag than a solid block of the same dimensions. This is because an F1 wing is so highly loaded as it 

strives to create huge amounts of downforce from such a small surface area, that the air coming off the 

wing creates an invisible extension to the wings frontal area. Created by both the airflow rising all but 

vertically off the centre part of the rear wing and then the even more draggy vortices spiralling off the 

wing tips. These vortices are often seen in wet conditions and used to be seen as a sign of an efficient 

wing, but are in fact hugely detrimental to the downforce\drag coefficient of a rear wing. This is why we 

see such efforts to reduce wing angles near the endplates and team make the slits in the endplates, as 

these are all aimed at reducing these vortices. 





Drag is created by the wings upwash and the vortices spilling from the wing tips 

An ideal situation would be a wing with steep angles of attack for downforce in the corners, where drag 

is of little consequence. Then a nice flat wing for the straights, where less drag improves top speed and 

downforce is not required to give the car grip. Without being legally able to move the wing itself(albeit 

this will allowed in 2011) there has no mechanism to create this effect in F1. 





When the wing is stalled the airflow breaks up, preventing the drag inducing upwash and vort ices 

Teams have known for a long time that stalling the rear wing drastically reduces downforce and as a 

result reduces drag. This is because the large flow structures coming off the wing break up and shed the 

drag inducing effect they have. Many teams have tried to exploit the rules by flexing their rear wings to 

create just such an effect, but the FIA has outlawed this via a number of deflection tests and latterly the 

slot gap separator. 

McLaren have now found that they can stall the rear wing, if they blow airflow out of a slot at right 

angles to the underside of the rear wing. But this in itself cannot be exploited unless there is a means to 

switch the airflow on and off. With the driver controlled F-duct, controlling the flow either to the stalling 

slot or to a neutral outlet, McLaren can achieve the ideal situation of a downforce wing setting for 

corners and low drag for the straights. 





The driver controlled Fluid switch directs flow to the wing or the neutral outlet 

By the driver controlling a duct that affects the flow through a ‘fluid switch‘, which is a “V shaped duct 

behind the roll hoop, flow can either pass to the slot or a secondary duct exiting in the low pressure 

region well away from the upper rear wing. 





When disengaged the F-Duct sends flow through the lower branch, the upwash and vortices 

continue to create dragWhen the duct is disengaged airflow passes out of the duct which exits 

just above the beam wing. In this mode the rear wing has the flow attached and creates 

downforce and with it drag.Blowing the flap stalls the wing to reduce drag 

When the F-Duct is disengaged air passes from the roll hoop inlet into the Fluid switch. From there the 

air flows both into the low level nuetral outlet and partly into the cockpit. When the driver covers this 

cockpit control duct, the change in back pressure makes fluid switch alter the direction of the roll hoop 

flow, to pass into the duct towards the rear wing. 





When the cockpit duct is covered air instead passes to the rear wing slot 

When the driver engages the F-duct the airflow alters inside the fluid switch to send the air out of the 

stalling slot. This breaks up the vortices shed from the rear wing and reduces downforce and drag. 

McLaren initially had this full width slot towards the trailing edge of the flap, the airflow stalls quite late 

as it passes under the wing and the most likely effect of this is that airflow can reattach quickly when the 

duct is disengaged. Its also possible that a downside to this, as the wing stalls quite near the trailing edge 

there may still be some drag induced by the general upwash from under the wing. 





Blowing the main plane stalls the wing earlier and may even further reduce drag 

When Sauber copied the F-duct at the 

2010 Australian GP, they had their F-duct 

stall the wing via a stalling slot in the main 

plane of the rear wing. While Ferrari and 

Red Bull followed McLaren with a flap 

stalling F-duct, Force India, Renault and 

latterly Toro Rosso have gone the way of a 

main plane stalling solution. By stalling the 

wing much further upstream, its possible 

that the disruption to the airflow further 

reduces the upwash, in turn reducing drag 

even further. On the downside the wing 

may take longer to see the flow fully 

reattach when the duct is disengaged. 

McLaren appear to have seen a benefit in the main plane blown effect. Although the solution has 

required new ducting and a new rear wing, it will only see at most three races before F-ducts are banned 

for 2011. Such is the cost of fighting for the championship this year. 





17.5 Renault 

Yet another endplate for Renault, now with a slot in the rear of the footplate (arrowed) 

The team brought the revised front wing endplate, as described in the Singapore Tech Desk. Although 

the endplate wasn’t raced in Marina bay, it was raced in Japan. A closer look at the bodywork shows the 

endplate is more complex than simply a revised vane mounted to the foot plate, as the foot plate also 

features a new slot. 

Renault already run a complex set up in this area, with the footplate sloping downwards, and kept legal 

by the rounded profile attached above it. Now this general downwards flow is augmented by the new 

slot, high pressure above the endplate passes through the slot to direct airflow around the front tyre. 

Renault have about the most complex endplate arrangement of any team, it will be interesting if they 

can produce any more revisions to this part before the seasons finished. 





















17.6 Williams 

Williams innovative with a beam wing with a full width blown slot at its rear 

Although the team main technical updates for Suzuka were new brake ducts, the teams Singapore 

upgrades were more visible, no longer hidden in the shadows around Singapore. At the last race the car 

sported a new diffuser and wings. While the front wing was covered in Singapore’s Tech Desk, the new 

rear wing hid some innovation. Specifically it’s the beam wing that been updated, which now gains a slot. 

Both in the FW32s initial design and with subsequent gearbox upgrades, Williams have been making 

efforts to reduce the bodywork height ahead of the beam wing in order to make it more effective at 

creating downforce. Perhaps with a view to 2011, when the beam wing will be more influential in 

creating downforce, as the double diffuser being banned. Although many beam wings have the simple 

15cm slot as used in rear wig flaps, Williams have gone further and expanded the narrow slot inside the 

wings to create a near full width exit for the slot in the rear face of the wing. 

Having a slot allows the team to create a steeper wing that’s both improves downforce and interacts 

better with the diffuser and rear wing. Feeding this slot is a large opening in the middle upper face of the 

wing; it’s possible to see the hollow section of the wing to the sides of this large inlet. 

Williams other development was their first use of extended front brake ducts; these exploit the loophole 

in the bodywork rules that allow a vane to reach towards the front perimeter of the tyre. This smoothes 

flow around the inside face of the wheel for reduced drag and better flow to the rear of the car. 





As a final update on their FW32, Williams have 

introduced new brake ducts for both the front 

and rear brakes. The new ducts feature a shield 

to prevent airflow into the duct to be disturbed 

by the rotating front wheel. This design feature 

is far from new and teams like Renault or 

McLaren have been running it since the 

beginning of the season. It is however likely that 

Williams have now changed the front brake 

ducts to better work with the new front wing 

they introduced in Singapore. While the 

endplate on that wing has become simpler, the 

stacked element hangs over the endplate for 

additional downforce. On the inside, an extra small stabiliser element was added as well, while the black 

flaps closest to the front wing supports are now similar to Renault's solution. 





17.7 Sauber 

A new diffuser for Sauber was both longer and had revised splitters and edges 

Sauber have announced many updates over the past few races, but few have been visibly different to the 

preceding parts. One area that has been changed is the diffuser, although at first it too looks very much 

like the outgoing design. In this update the diffusers upper deck has been enlarged and segmented, plus 

the outer edges of the diffusers exit have been revised. 

By making the upper diffuser longer more downforce can be created, but there needs to be space 

created around the gearbox and engine to accommodate the new shape. From the side it appears that 

the diffuser is some 5-10cm longer, and then its exit can be seen to have both horizontal and vertical 

splitters to direct the flow out of the exit. Lastly the small normally flat area of bodywork next to the rear 

tyres has been raised to create a mini diffuser effect. 






Diverging from its preseason design (yellow), the new Force India diffuser no longer has the 

dipped centre section (below) 

Another team to introduce a new diffuser was Force India, although changed in detail throughout the 

season; their diffuser has a distinctive shaped outlet since its launch. In the middle of the diffuser the 

split between upper and lower decks drops down to allow access to the starter shaft. Now this feature 

has been dropped for a more conventional curved shape and an aperture made into the floor to allow 

access to the starter. This is probably a slightly more effect shape for the floor as the entire slopes 

upwards to create downforce. 





17.9 Virgin 

Virgin has reported new wings and a floor in the past few races. However close examination suggests the 

parts are little changed, most likely small geometry changes rather than a major shift in philosophy. 




KOREA – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

18. KOREA – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








There was a lot of apprehension before the inaugural Korean GP took place as the seventeenth round of 

the 2010 Formula One season. Having had its track surface laid just weeks before the race, it was 

expected that the weekend would be focused solely on the tarmac. However, while it was certainly 

green and slippery on Friday, the main concerns actually raised were the dip in the final corner and the 

adjacent pit lane entrance rather than the surface itself. 

Overnight work rectified these issues and as the surface rubbered in, teams were managing to find a 

degree of grip on the dry track. However Sunday brought rain and the bitumen rich surface struggled to 

drain the water, so grip was once more at a premium. 

Weather and track surface aside the actual track layout proved popular, the mix of sectors between fast 

and slow with some impressively fast turns loading the car up to nearly 4g. Bumps and adverse cambers 

in the road made set up a compromise as cars were running quite a lot of ride height as more compliant 

suspension settings would have affected downforce in the high speed turns. Thus the track had a flat 

aero map with both high and low downforce settings offsetting each other around the lap to create 

similar lap times. 

With both a new track to contend with and at such a late stage in the season, technical developments 

were few and far between and most teams outside the top three in the championship have switched 

both development and manufacturing towards their 2011 car. Only the top three teams had new 

developments for this event and we can expect to see even less new parts in the final two races. 





18.2 Red Bull 

Still pressing on with development Red Bull had a new splitter and brake duct fins (yellow) 

Perhaps the only team still pressing on with development in a bid to gain the title, Red Bull brought a 

new splitter and brake ducts to Korea, the RB6 gaining its second new front splitter since the deflection 

test changes at Singapore. Now having to cope with double the loading to prevent any beneficial flexing, 

the new set up lost the vertical stay that supports the front edge of the floor. 

This change must have been made up with some other structural changes within the splitters 

attachment to the chassis. Before Singapore Red Bull were believed to have been allowing the splitter to 

move to allow lower front ride heights for aero benefit. Due to the tracks surface ride heights were set 

very high at Mokpo so any recouping of the performance loss from the new tests. 

As the front end of the car becomes even more complex aerodynamically, particularly with the slots 

within the front wing endplate, Red Bull have not been a team to exploit fins around the front brake 

ducts, until Korea. An area inboard of the wheel is allowed to have bodywork, so teams have exploited 

this to create aerodynamic devices, without passing them off as brake cooling. 

These devices can bring both downforce in their own right or airflow management to improve aero 

efficiency downstream. Red Bull has added three vanes to the endplate, to larger ones below the cooling 

scoop and a smaller horizontal wing-like device at the top of the brake duct. 





All of these changes and reportedly some floor and diffuser alterations from Suzuka were run on Friday. 

Red Bull once again carried out the now common practice of running flow-viz paint on the aerodynamic 

surfaces to correlate the real parts to the wind tunnel results. 

Vettel’s Race engine failure, the only one for Red Bull this year, appeared to be a major blow up. Judging 

from the sparks and debris emanating from beneath the floor, this was a significant bottom end failure. 

It would seem that reciprocating parts in the bottom of the engine (crankshaft con rod) let go and broke 

through both the engine casing and floor of the car. Broken components and oil then escaped the engine 

scattering themselves across the track. 

Varying brake ducts 

Over the last three races, Red Bull have tried out three different brake ducts. At Singapore, the 

horizontal caliper had a dedicated duct (Singapore drawing - 1) and there was also a small fin (Singapore 

drawing - 2). At Suzuka, the Singapore duct disappeared and was replaced by a single larger duct (Suzuka 

drawing - 3). The small fin was also removed for the Suzuka event, but this weekend in Korea it has been 

included again (Yeongam drawing - 2). There is a single larger duct (Yeongam drawing - 4) and also two 

new aerodynamic fins (Yeongam drawing - 5), which have been influenced by the Renault. 





Great view of the underside in FP3 

Splitter/floor testing RBR style 









18.3 McLaren 

McLarens slotted endplate aids airflow around the front wheel 

Having had their Suzuka program interrupted by rain and Hamilton’s FP1 accident. This did not allow 

McLaren to test and race the new aero components that were rushed to Japan. Thus these parts were 

reintroduced at Korea, largely consisting of a new front wing and the f-ducted rear wing. The f-duct and 

rear wing reappeared in lightly modified form; the f-duct blows the main element of the rear wing, 

rather than the flap as pioneered by McLaren. This wing also has revised slots on the endplate, the slots 

now running diagonally, rather horizontally. 

At the front, the MP4-25 was using the endplate that was meant for Suzuka. This creates more slots 

along the side of the wing, taking fast moving high pressure air from outside the endplate and use it to 

accelerate the flow on the inside of the endplate. The out swept shape of the endplate can then throw 

airflow past the front wheel more effectively, reducing drag. This effect is enhanced by a semi-circular 

gurney flap on the rear edge of the plate. This new slotted arrangement required a repackaging of the 

front wing flap adjusting mechanism, now contained under a new shaped cover. 

On Friday a small issue occurred in the pit lane as Button was trying new engine mappings. This caused 

the exhaust to run extremely hot, causing some overheating of the bodywork which needed to be cooled 

with the mechanics CO 2 extinguishers. It would normally be a lean or retarded engine mapping that 

would lead to such exhaust temperatures. This suggests McLaren were either trying lean settings to 

reduce fuel consumption or retarded ignition to drive more exhaust flow to power the blown diffuser on 

a closed throttle. 





















18.4 Ferrari 

The F10's ridged splitter has a curious split in the bodywork behind the stay 

Much like Red Bull Ferrari were one of the teams believed to be flexing the splitter to allow the front 

wing to run lower to the ground. To meet the new FIA tests they tested a ridged splitter in Singapore and 

raced it in Japan. Closer inspection shows the splitter to be more complex than simply a reinforced 

centre section. The F10's splitter retains a vertical stay which is there to keep the splitter from deflecting 

under the load test. Behind this stay the top bodywork is split across the breadth of the splitter. These 

parts are often made up of several sections of bodywork, but the split in the bodywork has given rise to 

some speculation of a workaround to allow the splitter to deflect while on track and still meet the FIA 

tests. However the F10 was inspected by scrutineers and no problems were found with its construction. 









Is it an exit from an intake maybe on 

the tea tray or is it an intake to 

alleviate the pressure behind the 

barge board ? That duct could be for 

the F-Duct meganism, for cooling of 

electronics or other systems or, 

simply to feed the DDD. 









In Korea, Ferrari introduced the 

biggest evolution to the F10's diffuser 

since its major update at Spa. The 

new-look diffuser (main drawing) is 

visibly different in its central section 

from its previous incarnation (inset). 

The top (1) and the bottom (2) 

profiles are now more curved to 

improve the extraction of air from 

the bottom of the car. The side 

channels now feature just one large 

middle plate, in place of the older 

version which was much smaller (3). 














One of the few teams with major developments to their car in recent races, the VJM03 again ran with its 

new diffuser and vane arrangement at the rear. However the team did do back to back tests with the old 

diffuser with its "V" shaped centre section. Also the revisions to the front wing endplates tried briefly in 

Japan were not raced in Korea either. 


With time running out for the F-duct in F1 before a legal driver adjustable wing is allowed in 2011, Toro 

Rosso once again ran their unraced f-duct in Friday practice. The driver’s report that the device did not 

perform as expected in its initial straight-line tests despite being run at several practice session means it 

is still to make it to a race this year. 

It is quite a unique design, with the inlet of the duct separated from the engine cover (see red arrow). 

More conventional is that the air blows on to the rear wing's main plane (see blue arrow). This follows 

the example set by Force India from 

Silverstone, Renault from Spa, Red 

Bull in Singapore and McLaren, who 

trialed the different configuration in 

Suzuka before racing with it in Korea. 

18.7 Williams 

Williams last update of the season included revised front and 

rear brake ducts. The front version aims to improve the 

airflow inside the tyres and direct it to the central section in a 

more efficient manner (see main drawing). The duct's shape is 

very similar to the one introduced in Monaco by Force India 

(see inset), which also influenced ducts used by Renault in 

Singapore. 




BRAZIL – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

19. BRAZIL – TECHNICAL REVIEW 








Increasingly seen as a classic venue, the Brazilian GP at Interlagos has it all. A track with an anticlockwise 

layout containing a variety of corners, bumps, a punishing long straight and overtaking opportunities, the 

changeable weather, excitable fans and a regular slot towards the end of the season, also make it an 

entertaining weekend. This year the race weekend didn't disappoint with a rain affected qualifying, 

numerous crashes and technical failures. While the race kept the excitement of the championship 

decider until Abu Dhabi, the weekend was short on technical developments. Only one team brought 

visibly new parts and only a few other teams reported new developments on their cars. 

Oil systems 

Interlagos is amongst just a few tracks where the circuit runs anticlockwise. Hence the track is 

predominantly left hand turns, rather than mainly right hand turns on a clockwise track. Clearly this 

induces lateral loads the opposite direction to normal. For the driver this means his head is thrown the 

other direction to normal and his neck muscles are strained. While this may induce discomfort in a long 

race the impact is minimal. However for the engine the change in direction of lateral loads can risk a 

major catastrophe. At Interlagos Cosworth gained their first pole since 1999. Here they help explain the 

challenges lateral loads induce in their CA2010 V8 engine. Any fast turn is an issue, but Cosworth 

highlight a few specific corners “Suzuka 130R corner is the most demanding on the circuit in terms of 

lateral oil surge. In nature, the corner is similar to the Becketts sequence of curves at Silverstone or 

Pouhon at Spa”. 

Oil is circulated in the engine at high pressure, forcing the lubricant into the tight gaps between 

reciprocating components, cooling parts as it does so. However the oil then returns to the bottom of the 

engine by gravity alone. Within the sump the oil is collected to be de-aerated, cooled and stored within 

the oil tank. To aid this collection process - known as scavenging - the sump is shaped to direct the oil 

towards oil scavenge pumps mounted along one side of the engine. These pumps are on the right side of 

the engine, as the lateral loads for a clockwise circuit throw the oil toward their inlets. 





Oil from the sump needs to reach the scavenge, pumps, baffles in the tank keep oil in place 

However on an anticlockwise track, these loads are working against the engines design. On long turns oil 

may not be collected for several seconds, with a tiny oil capacity an F1 engine will soon starve of oil if it 

cannot be scavenged from the sump. 

To ease this issue the engine has an oil tank with enough capacity to meet these periods when not being 

fed by the scavenge pumps. Oil from the scavenge pumps passes through the oil cooler in the sidepods 

then piped into the oil tank. From here the oil is pumped directly into the engine to lubricate and cool 

the parts. Cosworth say that the engine is safe, "as long as oil can be continually passed to it from the 

main tank". 

Equally the same lateral forces are also at work here. Cosworth explain "the biggest issue is actually 

combating surge in the oil tank, the phenomenon whereby oil is forced to the side of the tank as the car 

corners". Oil within the tank is also affected by lateral loads, but less so, by the left or right direction of 

the loads, alleviating the anticlockwise issue. As well as being a tall narrow shape to keep the oil neat the 

collector at the bottom, Cosworth add "The tanks are all designed internally to prevent oil surge through 

the use of baffles". Oil tanks are carefully designed with CFD to replicate the oil surge problem, then the 

results are proven using test rigs at the Factory replicating the loads, the dummy oil tank is fitted with a 

clear window to show how the oil is thrown around. 

Even with surge problems tested at the factory, during a race there can be added complications, 

according to Cosworth "all tanks will experience surge when the oil level drops low enough, resulting in 

momentary drops in oil pressure that could potentially damage the engine". Every team finds its own 





design of oil tank and ways of minimizing the weight of oil carried, "Teams will carry out minimum oil 

level checks during free practice, to ensure that they start the race with a sufficient oil level to prevent 

pressure drop-outs during the race". Cosworth warn that "If the engine’s oil consumption turns out to be 

unexpectedly high, teams could be in trouble during the final few laps." 





19.2 Ferrari 

Since Silverstone Ferrari have been back in contention for the championship, to keep up this pressure 

there were yet more updates in Brazil. There was both a major diffuser update and a smaller fin added to 

the front brake ducts. 

A slot allows the exhaust to blow into the diffuser, the floor also gain 3 slots in front of the tyres 





This 12cm fin (yellow) adds downforce directly to the tyres contact patch 

Ferrari first introduced their exhaust blown diffuser in Valencia, being one of the first teams to copy the 

Red Bull idea. However it’s taken nearly ten more races for the team to develop a version that has the 

exhaust blowing inside the diffuser. Red Bulls EBD has always had a small inlet into the diffuser and this 

was enlarged at the British GP. Since then both Williams and Mercedes have adopted this idea. An EBD 

increases downforce by accelerating the flow through the diffuser; it can do this by either blowing over 

the top of the diffuser, or blowing inside the diffuser. The latter solution creates even more downforce. 

Thus Ferrari has now split the floor where it meets the diffuser and created a wide slot for the exhaust to 

blow into. This change is mated to the detail changes in the rear of the diffuser introduced in Korea. 

Additionally the floor gains yet another slot in front of the rear tyres to add up to three slots in this area. 

Aside from detail changes the Ferrari front wing and endplate has been largely unchanged in concept all 

season. Ferrari mates the endplate to an array of fins on the inside of the front brake duct. These were 

augmented with a new fin which bolts to the leading edge of the duct. As the rules allow bodywork to 

reach up to 12cm from the inside face of the wheel, although described as air ducts these do not need to 

form any cooling function. Thus these aero shaped devices can create downforce directly into the tyres 

and not through the suspension. 





Open Fronted Blown Diffuser 

The opening in the diffuser (yellow) is blown by the exhausts gasses (red) 





Closed diffuser: the exhaust gas (red) blows over the top of the diffuser (yellow) 

Having an open front to the diffuser and directing exhaust flow into it, speeds up the airflow through the 

diffuser creating more downforce. As with all EBD’s the trade-off is the variation of downforce according 

to throttle position. To some extent the positioning of the exhaust well upstream from the inlet reduces 

this effect, as does the engine mappings that retard the ignition and keep the exhaust flow moving even 

when off the throttle. 





Open Diffuser: the exhaust gas (red) enters the slot and passes inside the diffuser (yellow) 

Since mid-season both Williams and Mercedes have created open fronted diffusers. In Mercedes case 

the 800c heat from the exhaust created problems with the diffuser rigidity. Detail design heat shields 

and improved materials, such as ceramic composites (i.e. Pyrosil) have allowed the exhaust flow to pass 

directly over the diffuser surface without thermal problems. 

Ferrari’s late introduction of the open fronted diffuser and revised F-duct is at odds with statements 

from the team back in Singapore that the cars development had finished focusing on 2011. Either Ferrari 

has reignited their development program as their championship fortunes have reversed with wins in the 

late season races. Or perhaps the comments meant that the development of the parts had finished, i.e. 

the design phase was over, but the manufacturing and testing were still in progress. 

Clearly these parts do not come from any 2011 program as the draft rules will ban openings in the 

diffuser. Although these rules are aimed at eradicating the double diffuser, the wording prevents 50mm 

openings in the outer portion of the floor (where the flat floor meets the diffuser). Thus open fronted 

diffuser is effectively banned as routing exhausts that far outboard are impractical. In 2011 downforce 

can still gained by having the exhaust blowing over the top towards gurney flap to speed flow the 

diffuser. Equally the f-duct is banned in 2011 replaced by a driver adjustable rear wing. 





The Ferrari complete blown diffuser 

solution with the airflow from the 

exhausts also blowing inside the side 

channels. Unlike the Red Bull, it features a 

horizontal hole (1) rather than the vertical 

one of the RB6. The central section used 

in Korea has been modified with more 

rounded profiles (2) and the additional 

middle plate (3) that was seen on the car 

up until Suzuka has now been removed. 

An additional, small fin has been added to the front brake ducts in Brazil to gain any extra downforce 

possible. On Friday only Alonso had it, together 

with a three-slot configuration in the underbody 

in front of the rear tyres. It's interesting to note 

that in the final few races of 2010 a lot of effort 

has been made by all the teams to optimise the 

aero efficiency of the brake ducts, almost treating 

them as aerodynamic devices. 





19.3 McLaren 

Less visible than the major changes at Ferrari McLaren introduced floor changes in Brazil. Parts flown out 

at the last minute as hand baggage were tried successfully on Friday. McLaren also continued to switch 

between flap and main-plane blown rear wings, with each driver having different preferences for 

downforce levels, there appears to be two very separate programs running to set the cars up for each 

driver. 





19.4 Mercedes 

The white coating under the diffuser reflects heat from the exhaust (red) 

There was some confusion as Mercedes ran what appeared to be a different diffuser on Rosberg’s car 

through the open three practice sessions. On closer inspection the two diffusers were identical, but 

Rosberg’s bodywork had a white coating on the inside. This transpires to be a heat reflective finish used 

to protect the carbon fibre from the high temperature exhaust gasses blowing inside the diffuser. 

Normally this finish is over sprayed black to help hide the technical detail of the diffusers shape. In 

Rosberg case this re-spray hadn’t been completed in time and he ran with the exposed finish. Looking at 

where the finish is applied its clear the exhaust gasses are not purely aimed at the top of the diffuser, but 

also to towards the side; this reduces drag as it directs airflow into the low pressure region behind the 

large rear tyres. 





19.5 Williams 

The majority of teams have been busily evolving their brake ducts, to the point that they are becoming 

more like aero devices. Williams' most 

recent version, as seen in Brazil, has been 

designed to recover as much downforce 

as possible and uses a series of fins (black 

arrows). The shape of the area between 

the rear tyres and the side channels of 

the diffuser (red arrow) is designed to 

receive air blowing from the car's 

exhausts. 






Force India were the first team to have the F-duct blowing on to the rear wing's main plane instead of 

the flap (blue arrow). This system was introduced in Silverstone then copied by Renault at Spa, Red Bull 

and BMW Sauber in Singapore, and 

McLaren in Japan and Korea. It's a more 

powerful and efficient solution. Ferrari were 

also expected to follow Force India's 

example, but chose instead to concentrate 

on their blown diffuser solution. 




UAE – TECHNICAL REVIEW F1 Season 2010 

20. UAE – TECHNICAL REVIEW 







20.1 McLaren 

On Friday in Abu Dhabi McLaren carried out back-to-back tests with two rear wings. Hamilton's car 

featured a new version (bottom illustration), where the air from the F-duct system blows on to the main 

plane of the rear wing. Button ran with the older high-downforce rear wing, where the air blows on to 

the rear wing's flap (top illustration). In qualifying and for Sunday's race, both drivers used the newer 

version of the wing on their cars. 





20.2 Ferrari 

Air blowing from the F10's exhausts goes not only under the rear of the car beside the tyres (left, single 

arrow), but also inside the side channels of the rear diffuser. Unlike the Red Bull, which uses a vertical 

window in the side channel, the Ferrari has a horizontal opening to filter the hot air (right, twin arrows). 

This solution was introduced with the new diffuser in Korea and kept for the last two races of the season. 





20.3 Red Bull 

Well Done Mister Newey !! 





20.4 Renault 

The drivers are pleased F-duct systems will be banned next season, as they take a risk when they operate 

them. This illustration shows Renault's F-duct, which is a good example of the system used by many 

teams. The driver can operate it by blocking the hole at the side of the steering wheel with his left hand 

(red arrow). This often requires the driver to briefly let go of the steering wheel. 




TECHNICAL ARTICLES F1 Season 2010 

21. TECHNICAL ARTICLES 







21.1 2010 REGULATION CHANGES- 2009/2010 COMPARISON 

From the front, the 2010 cars will look distinctly different to their '09 predecessors due to the narrower 

front tyres (1) and the wider rear bodywork needed to accommodate the larger fuel tank (2) required 

following the ban on refuelling. The slimmer front tyres - which address the imbalance of front and rear 

grip that resulted from the reintroduction of slicks last year - will widen the space between tyre and 

chassis, thus making this area even more important aerodynamically, so expect to see it featuring some 

interesting aero components. 

The F1-Forecast Technical Files Volume II – Page 492 




Although the refuelling ban for 2010 is a change to the sporting regulations, it has technical implications 

too. The fuel tank's capacity (2) has almost doubled from around 120 litres to at least 235 litres, while 

the car's minimum weight has been increased from 605kg to 620kg. To accommodate the larger tank, 

the car's wheelbase will likely be increased by around 15cm (3). Another 2010 change is that wheels 

covers (1) have been banned. This is primarily to avoid problems during pit stops which, with no 

refuelling, will be incredibly fast. It's been estimated that pit stop times will be cut to under four seconds. 

The changes for 2010 are perhaps most striking from overhead. As a result of the ban on refuelling, the 

fuel tank (4) will be longer and wider. The wheelbase is likely to be about 15 cm longer than in '09 to 

accommodate this larger tank (6), though teams could opt to move the driver forward slightly (3) or build 

shorter gearboxes (5) to minimise this increase. At the front, the narrower front tyres (2) will change the 

handling characteristics and weight distribution of the car, while the driver has control of the front wing 

flap angle (1) from the cockpit. 





21.2 2010 RULE CHANGES- ACCOMODATING LARGER FUEL TANKS 

As a result of the ban on refuelling, 2010 cars will almost certainly have longer wheelbases as designers 

are forced to accommodate fuel tanks close to double the size of their predecessors'. One of the biggest 

engineering challenges will be to minimize this increase in wheelbase - and to minimize the impact of any 

increase. Moving the cockpit forward slightly and a shorter gearbox design are two possible options. A 

third could see teams harking back to a concept not seen on the grid in over a decade. In 1998 Stewart's 

Alan Jenkins and Arrows' John Barnard moved the oil tank from its then traditional position in the 

gearbox casing (left car, red arrow) to a new location immediately behind the cockpit (middle drawing, 

red arrow). This had the advantages of positioning the tank's weight near the car's centre of gravity, and 

reducing the car's overall weight thanks to the need for shorter piping. And that's where the oil tank has 

stayed, until now. Under the new rules, rather than housing the oil tank behind the newly-expanded fuel 

tank (which would mean increasing the wheelbase), we could see it once more shifted rearwards, where 

it can be housed with the gearbox without penalty. 





21.3 F-DUCTS: HOW DO THEY WORK ? 

[Source: Racecar Engineering Magazine with Craig Scarborough illustrations] 

(April 20, 2010) 

McLaren have found a clever loop hole in the 2010 regulations allowing them to stall the rear wing at 

high speed, Racecar looks at how they may have achieved this, and why it provides an advantage. 

When McLaren's F-Duct system first appeared in pre-season testing it was hailed by many a a true stroke 

of genius, a classic example of out-thinking the regulations. With the basic idea being that the driver is 

able to alter the airflow over the rear wing, without infringing regulation 3.15 (below), and in doing so 

gain a speed advantage on straights. 

3.15 Aerodynamic influence: 

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver 

adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part 

of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance: 

Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork 

Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having 

any degree of freedom) 

Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car 

This speed advantage appears to have given the team the upper hand at the Shanghai circuit, Racecar 

decided to investigate the theory behind the new system. 

Why is the F-Duct beneficial? 

Basic wing theory 

First we need to look at some basic aerodynamic theory regarding wing profiles and lift/drag ratios. At 

the simplest level a wing generates downforce due to its profile accelerating airflow on its lower surface 

in relation to the flow over the top surface. If flow is accelerated pressure drops, with the result being a 

pressure differential between the upper and lower surface of the wing and thus a net downward force, 

as illustrated below. 





Flaps and slot gaps 

If the angle of attack of a wing is increased it can ultimately 'stall' due to flow separation along the 

trailing edge, with a resultant loss in downforce and consequently aerodynamic grip. 

Stall.avi 

Click the above link to show a video of the lift generating wing stalling (the basic theory is the same for 

a downforce generating race car wing) 

To get around this problem, dual element or slot-gap wings are used, these allow for some of the high 

pressure flow from the top surface of the wing to bleed to the lower surface of the wing. This increases 

the speed of the flow under the wing, increasing downforce and reducing the boundary flow separation. 

(See below) 

If you look at a modern F1 rear wing you can see this concept taken to the extreme, with multi-element 

wings creating huge amounts of downforce, the downside being a significant drag penalty. However if 

the flow over the 'flap' section of the wing can be stalled, the lift/drag ratio worsens, but the overall 

result is a massive drop in the coefficient of lift, resulting in a net reduction in drag, hence the benefits in 

relation to top speed. It should however be noted that it is only stalling the trailing edge flow that is 

beneficial as opposed to stalling the entire wing. 

Early solutions 

Previously teams had contrived to create flexible wing sections the allowed the 'slot gap' to close up 

under high aerodynamic loads, once this became evident to the governing bodies it was rapidly 

outlawed. Wings are now subject to static load tests to ensure that they cannot flex. So if a team were 

able to achieve a similar effect within the regulations, considerable straight-line performance gains could 

be made. 

If you stall the flap on an F1-wing (in the wind tunnel) then the drag drops enough to calculate that the 

top-speed of the car could be 3-5kph faster (we did this ten years ago) but the trick is doing it in a way 

that's legal (well, not illegal). Wind tunnel engineers can do this by altering the slot-gap geometry and/or 

changing parts to simulate flexing-on-the-track. It's very easy to demonstrate in a wind tunnel - just very 

difficult to engineer it so that it's not illegal. 





McLaren's solution 

McLaren appear to have found a very neat solution for redirecting the airflow over the rear wing and 

consequently allowing the flap to stall. Whilst they have been very tight lipped about the system, it is 

most likely that the conduit from the front to rear of the car has a vent in the cockpit that can be blocked 

by the drivers left leg, which is not in use on long straights. Blocking the vent could direct enough airflow 

through the conduit to disrupt the flow over the rear flap and induce a stall. This approach is ingenious 

for two key reasons: 

By using the drivers leg to direct the flow, the regulations are not contravened regarding 

movable aerodynamic devices. 

By incorporating the design into the monocoque it becomes very difficult for other teams to 

copy the device, due to the fact monocoques have to be homologated and changes are very 

expensive to make. 

Below are some images of the most probable routing for the system: 

(Illustrations by Craig Scarborough) 

Picture of the McLaren cockpit shows a clear channel running alongside the driver. 





Additional pair of slot gaps in the upper rear wing element are fed by airflow from the duct that exits 

from the 'Shark Fin' engine cover 





Illustration of the most likely routing for the duct 





Whilst the exact workings of the system are impossible to judge, the above explanation is the most likely. 

McLaren have managed to get a jump on their competition and a number of teams have already tested 

their own interpretations of the system, although whether these will integrate as efficiently with their 

existing aero packages remains to be seen. 

MP4-25 - Rear wing 





McLaren Snorkel: How it works 

(March 11, 2010) 





How its done… 

The snorkel on the top of the chassis feeds a duct passing down inside the footwell, its position is 

somewhere around the pedals, it runs down alongside the brake pedal\footrest so as to avoid the 

mandatory padding inside the cockpit. This duct has a ‘hole’ in it to ‘cool’ the driver inside the cockpit. 

However the duct continues inside the chassis, past the fuel tank and up and over the air box (probably 

passing by the hatch fitted high up on the engine cover), then through the shark fin and into the rear 

wing flap. 

When the driver places his foot\leg over the hole the flow is diverted into the rest of the duct and this 

feeds the slot on the rear wing flap. There is enough airflow through the convoluted duct to disrupt the 

airflow under the rear of the wing, effectively breaking up the flow around the wing. This is what F1 

aerodynamicists term a ’stalled’ condition, although this is different to the term ‘stall’ used in 

aeronautical aerodynamics. In this ‘stalled’ state, the strong spiralling flows coming off the wing, that 

lead to the huge drag penalty a highly loaded F1 wing incurs, break up. Without these flows and 

their resulting drag penalty, the car is able to get to a higher top speed, by around 3-4kph. 

When the driver is ready to brake for the next corner, he releases foot\leg and the airflow passes back 

into the cockpit and the rear wing flow reattaches, creating downforce and its attendant drag. In this 

format the car can lap normally with its wings delivering maximum downforce. 

This set up is legal as the rear wing slot in itself is legal (used by McLaren, BMW Sauber last year). There 

is no specific working to prevent wing stalling in the rules. There are no moving aerodynamic parts, 

except perhaps for the drivers foot\leg. It’s a piece of interpretive genius, but perhaps as far removed 

from the spirit of the rules as you can get. 

What now 

Of course now its deemed legal, teams can either formally protest it or adopt it themselves. Doing the 

the latter is possible for most teams, as they have apertures in the footwell area to fit a snorkel, while 

the shark fin and rear wing are easily created. But, finding a route for the duct out of the tub might prove 

the headache, as the monocoque may not have any openings sufficiently large enough. This year the 

monocoque is also is subject to homologation and hence cannot be altered until the 2011 season. Of 

course ‘where there’s a will, there’s a way’, teams will not want to lose a straight line speed advantage. 





21.4 COOLING: OPTIONS FOR OUTLETS 



Since the changes in the bodywork rules for 2009, teams have struggled to tune their cooling within the 

limits of what openings can be made in the cars sidepods. Tuning the cars cooling is always a 

compromise, between outlet area and drag. the more outlet area the greater heat that can be evacuated 

from within the sidepods. But this comes at the cost of drag, which will slow the cars lap times. 

Heat is created by the engine, then ejected via convection through the radiators and radiation from the 

engine itself, especially the exhausts. Additionally cooling needs to be provided for the gearbox oil and 

hydraulics fluid (plus in 2009 the KERS hardware). The bodywork rules apply a no opening rules for three 

areas of the sidepods; 1) either side of the cockpit opening, either side of the fuel tank and then from a 

point near the rear wheels. Plus the teams can have a limited area to open around the rear suspension 

and an equally restricted single opening for the exhaust pipe outlet. (see the full rules at the bottom of 

the article). 

Different panels alter the size of the coke bottle exit 

Aside from the limited openings stated, the rules initially looked like the only area for cooling would be 

the exit at the rear of the coke bottle shape. To this end several teams created removable panels to tune 





the size of the exit, McLaren in particular created an effective solution to do this with the MP4-24. 

However the downside of solely using the coke bottle exit, was also the primary reason teams switched 

to chimneys and louvers in the years preceding the new rules. This makes the sidepods bulky as the air 

from the radiators needs to be ducted all the way along the cars length. Plus the exit being in between 

the rear wheels created drag and upsets the aerodynamics. Every team has oversized the apertures that 

the suspension passes through up to the maximum allowable area, this provides a useful exit as does the 

area the exhaust pipe which is oversized for the actual pipework the exhaust employs. 

Panels either side of the cockpit are an effective cooling option 

But closer reading of the rules shows there are other areas that can be exploited. Taking a wider view the 

rules allow room for unrestricted openings ahead of and behind the restricted sidepod areas. 

Additionally opening can be made inboard of these areas and an area up to ~50mm above the floor. We 

soon saw teams create openings near the cockpit, being just above the radiators they are particularly 

efficient, and with the raised cockpit sides being a add-on to the structure of the monocoque, quite easy 

to retrospectively apply to the car. Teams have employed both vents and louvers in this area, in extreme 

temperatures teams even have louvered and vented panels fitted to the same opening. Near this spot 

the very front of the sidepods extend beyond the controlled zone and Both Force India and McLaren 

have created openings across the front shoulder of the sidepod. Towards the rear, it was Red Bull that 

found that the upright engine cover could act as a vent, as the engine cover tapers towards its end openable 

panels allow hot air to exit. 





If the radiators extend far forwards enough, this opening can be used 





Outlets on the spine of the engine cover are another option for Cooling 

For local cooling rather than a major out many teams fit outlets along the lower edge of the sidepods, 

normally this is actually part of the floor, BMW Sauber in particular have fitted long runs of louvers to 

exploit this area. 





Runs of louvers along the floor 

Also Ferrari have exploited the rule on exhaust opening, while it demands a single opening of a 

maximum size, the rules do not state how narrow it can be at any point. Thus Ferrari created an exhaust 

pipe exit in line with the louvers, the four apertures joined by a small slot machined into the bodywork. 

The slot joins the apertures and effectively makes them one opening, extending the area allowed over a 

greater area. Critical for Ferrari who have a “U” bend in their exhaust pipe that would otherwise scorch 

the bodywork. 

One other point on cooling opening is that teams sometimes have larger openings on one side of the car 

than the other. This is because the sidepods contain asymmetric cooler, one sidepod will also have an oil 

cooler, taking up some of the space of the water radiator. Thus this side has greater outlet area to 

maintain low oil temperatures. 





MERCEDES 





FERRARI 





McLAREN 





RED BULL 





WILLIAMS 





FORCE INDIA 





SAUBER 





COOLING RELATED BODYWORK RULES 

3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes 

defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous 

curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm: 

a) the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear 

face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than 

100mm above the reference plane ; 

b) the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face 

of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than 

100mm above the reference plane ; 

c) the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face 


100mm above the reference plane. 

d) the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face 


675mm above the reference plane. 

The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel 

centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any 

vertical surfaces which lie normal to the car centre line. 

3.8.5 Once the relevant bodywork surfaces are defined in accordance with Article 3.8.4, apertures, any of 

which may adjoin or overlap each other, may be added for the following purposes only: 

- single apertures either side of the car centre line for the purpose of exhaust exits. These apertures may 

have a combined area of no more than 50,000mm when projected onto the surface itself. No point on an 

aperture may be more than 350mm from any other point on the aperture. 

- apertures either side of the car centre line for the purpose of allowing suspension members and 

driveshafts to protrude through the bodywork. No such aperture may have an area greater than 12,000 

mm when projected onto the surface itself. No point on an aperture may be more than 200mm from any 

other point on the aperture. 





21.5 THE END OF POD WING MOUNTED MIRRORS 



Ferrari was the first team to move the wing mirrors from the conventional spot near the cockpit to the 

edge of the sidepods. Since then most teams have at least try the set up. From the next race in China, 

this mirror location will be banned. Always a controversial part as many see their location and more 

flexible mounting as hindrance to rear visibility. During their reign the FIA even introduced scrutinizing 

tests to ensure the driver has reasonable rear visibility. But all the problems associated with these 

mirrors are worth it due to the beneficial aerodynamic location. 

Outboard - podwing mounted mirror 





Alternative - Mid placed Mirror 





Conventional - cockpit mounted mirror 

A wing mirrors on any vehicle is a bluff and no aerodynamic shape, from the CFD analysis “Flow Around a 

Wing Mirror” you can read after how its wake is unsteady and turbulent. The FIA demands mirrors are 

fitted with a reflective surface 150mm x 50mm this creates quite large surface to streamline. In a 

conventional position this sends the wake directly downstream towards the rear wing, upsetting its 

efficiency. Placing these outboard places the mirrors in the already turbulent area of the front wheel 

wake. Thus the impact of the bluff mirror housing is reduced. With the change in aero rules in 2009, the 

mirror placement in this area allowed the pod wing to be taller and have a greater aero influence. 

However even with the ban on the mirror locations, the fin-like pod wings will remain, as they sit in a 

blind spot within the bodywork regulations. 

It was Ferrari that first introduced the outboard mirror, on the launch version of the F2006. Initially the 

mirrors were on their own arched mounting (itself acting as a small turning vane), as pod wings were not 

universally adopted. Over the subsequent years many teams have adopted the mirrors. The following 

year, Renault with their R27 placed the mirrors directly onto the pod wings. It was this later development 

that visibility problems first really occurred; the pod wing needed additional support to prevent is 

wobbling at high speed. At the time Renault Aerodynamicist, Dino Toso told me he believed the mirrors 

would actually provide a better view, as the mirror was further from the driver, the vibration would 

affect the view less than a mirror close to his eye line. Toyota found a halfway house by using the early 

Ferrari type mounting, but placed mid way between the cockpit and the edge for the sidepod. 





Ferrari F2006 mirror 

Renault R27 mirror 

As other Aerodynamicists sought to reap the same gains, the drivers 

often rebuked the new mirrors. Adrian Newey frequently brought 

outboard mirrors on the Red Bull, only for the drivers to opt for 

visibility over performance. Toyota equally tried mirrors in all three 

positions (cockpit, midway & outboard), Toyota’s consultant Frank 

Dernie told me “All the drivers I have worked with have refused to 

use them and asked for conventional ones”. 

Although there’s a damning case for the visibility from outboard 

mirrors, that is not to say that conventional mirrors are much 

better. From on board shots we can often see the mirror resonating 

at high speed, from the engine vibration and the harshness of the 

ride. Obviously in this mode, the mirror cannot provide a decent 

rear view. 

This year Mercedes, Virgin, Renault, STR, Lotus all run conventional 

positions. While McLaren did try pod wing mirrors at the last race 

and elected not to run them. At the time McLaren stated “We made 

a decision after P3 to remove them. Not sure yet if they’ll be making 

a comeback”, but this may have been because of the impending 

ban. 

There is a performance loss with the re-siting of the mirrors for the 

other teams, but this will be measured in no more than a tenth per 

lap. the change is not likely to upset the teams order. 

Flow around a wing mirror 

[Source: Nabla Ltd – Simulation Software and Consultancy] 

A simplified car wing-mirror, is mounted on a flat plate in an open wind tunnel. The geometry is a halfcylinder 

of diameter 20 cm with hemi-spherical free end. The far-field flow speed is 40 m/s. All 

calculations were done using DES methods, using Spalart-Allmaras and turbulent energy transport 

equation (Yoshizawa). The mesh size was approx. 2.4 million cells. Animation below shows pressure on 

the mirror baseplate, with large scale shedding, a ‘horseshoe’ vortex and wake details. 

Mirror Surface pressure.mpg 

Click on the link above to view the animation 

Below are comparisons of velocities from LES simulation (black arrows) with LDA measurements 

(coloured arrows, after A.M.K.P Taylor, Imperial College London). The direction and magnitude of the 

velocities is predicted well both upstream and downstream of the mirror. The prediction of 

reattachment in the wake is within 10% of the measured results. 





The graph below compares static pressure measurements at points on the mirror surface with calculated 

values using different LES models and meshes. A contour plot of the static pressure on the front of the 

mirror is also shown below. The final image shows time averaged vortices. 









The adjacent image shows the RMS of the pressure 

fluctuations on the baseplate around the mirror. The 

vortex shows strong vibrational motion, with the 

strongest noise sources seen to originate from the 

mirror trailing edges and reaching a maximum some 

distance downstream in the wake. High surface 

fluctuations are due to a combination of strong 

shedding vortices from the trailing edge and 

turbulence production in the shear layer between 

the separation bubble and the free stream. 

Below shows Fourier transforms of pressure trace for a point on the back of the wing mirror. The 

transformed trace is analogous to the noise produced at that point on the surface according the Lighthill 

hypothesis. The comparison is between experimental data (black), Spalart Allmaras (S-A, green) and SGS 

turbulence energy transport DES (1eq, blue). Excellent agreement can be seen, especially for the SA 

model up to nearly 4kHz. 





21.6 RIDE HEIGHT: ALTERING BETWEEN QUALIFYING AND RACE 

Ride height changes with fuel level 


(February 21, 2010) 

Pushrods: these are normally used to adjust ride height, adding shims between the carbon pushrod 

and the metal top section 

The ban on refuelling was originally envisaged as a method to liven up the show, forcing drivers to 

overtake rather than wait for pit stops. Making the cars fuel tanks big enough to house the 170+ kg of 

fuel for a race distance has been a well-publicised challenge. But there’s another facing the teams 

brought in by the rule change. How the cars handling changes with the ever lightening fuel load. 

Its been a long time since F1 cars had to run without refuelling. Since then the car have raced with 60- 

80kg of fuel on board, burned it off over 20-30 laps and then take on another tankful. Now teams will 

start with 170kg of fuel and burn it off over the course of the entire race. With F1 cars dry weight just 

610Kg this is now a substantial proportion of the cars weight. This extra weight will press down on the 

cars suspension pushing it closer to the ground. Thus the cars ride height will alter considerably from the 





start of the through to the end. Ride height is critical for two reasons; the overriding issue is 

aerodynamic. Firstly the front wing and diffuser work in ground effect, so they work better the closer to 

the ground they get. Thus the wings will work better at the start of the race and diminish as the fuel load 

lightens. Secondly ground clearance, the plank and titanium skid blocks will be prone to wearing when 

the car is heavy, excessive wear on the skid blocks will render the car illegal in post race scrutinizing. 

The teams will need to set the car up to work over a wide range of ride heights, this will mean 

compromises somewhere, making the car better at high or low ride. 

Making matters more complicated will be the return to low fuel final qualifying, the cars will enter Parc 

Fermé on Saturday all but empty, then they will be fully fuelled before the race. Again do the teams 

make their set up favour low fuel\high ride height qualify or go for heavy fuel low ride height for early 

race pace, or pick a point somewhere in between? Every track will favour certain compromises. Monaco 

is the classic example of a set up compromised towards qualifying, so teams will focus on the lighter fuel 

settings, but remain conscious that plank wear can be high over the principalities bumps and kerbs. 

One solution put forward was ride height adjustment made during the race. Since the ban on active 

technologies in the nineties, the rules are clear, there can be no adjustment of the cars suspension while 

it is moving, equally Parc Fermé rules prevent any changes between qualifying and the race. But teams 

could have a mechanic adjust the ride height during the pit stops. 

This would be legal and feasible, as the pushrods or torsion bar mounting could be fitted with a quick 

adjustment mechanism. Even within a sub 3 second pit stop, this could be completed accurately. But as 

the car will start the race with qualifying (low fuel) ride height settings, this could not be adjusted until 

the first pit stop, thus the opening stint would be compromised by the wring ride height. Of course the 

balance of the race could then follow the ride height with the decreasing fuel load, but adjusting at the 

second and subsequent stops. 

How could this be done? 

Teams generally adjust ride height with shims fitted to the pushrods. The pushrod is split between the 

main shaft and the metal end fitting, by loosening the bolts that tie them together a shim can be added 

into the gap. Thicker shims mean more ride height and the shims need to be added to each of the four 

pushrods (two front two rear) to gain a balanced ride height. Adjusting via this method is impractical 

during a rapid pit stop. The pushrods could have a threaded adjuster as used on the front wing flap, a 

turn of the adjuster drops ride height by a fixed amount, this would be quicker to adjust, but still all four 

relatively in accessible (during a hectic pit stop at least) would be difficult. 

More likely would be to rotate the fixed ends of the torsion bar springs, by fitting the torsion bars on 

each axle to a common mechanism; they could be quickly adjusted by a single adjuster (two in total for 

the car) accessible through the top of the chassis or gearbox. Although the latter would be still hard to 

access shrouded by the rear wheels and rear wing, plus the associated wheel change and jack mechanics. 







McLarens Martin Whitmarsh spoke out at the Australian GP about the use of Ride Height Adjustments in 

between the qualifying and the race. Suggesting that several teams, one of which was Red Bull had such 

systems. 

As previously explained (see article above) the ban on refuelling creates huge weight differences 

between qualifying and the race (150kg), this alters ride height considerably (by F1 standards). Already 

running just 20-30mm off the ground the cars aerodynamics relies on a low ride height to create 

maximum downforce. Equally having the ride too low height creates wear on the cars underbody skidblocks 

set into the ‘plank’, if the wear is excessive the car will be excluded from the results. Furthermore 

Parc Fermé rule prevents the teams changing settings in between qualifying and the race, so teams need 

to find a compromise somewhere between set up for the light Q fuel or heavy race fuel. However, if a 

team were able to find a way to alter the ride height legally in between or indeed through the race then 

they could have ideal set up for each segment of the weekend. We know teams have ride height 

adjusters that can be adjusted at the pit stop, these tend not be used as they cannot be used until the 

first pit stop and with only one stop being the nor for the opening races it appears to be a ‘set up’ 

complication no one wants. 

Suspension set up 

F1 cars suspension tends to adopt similar formats both front & rear and across the teams. Ride height 

and spring\damping is provided by a pushrod (or Pull rod for Red Bulls rear suspension, which is the 

same but inverted) which operates a rocker, this rocker has levers operating the torsion bar spring, 

damper and third (or heave) damper. Ride height it set by the angle of the torsion bar on its splines and 

fine tuned by the shims in the pushrod. Ride height does get controlled by the heave damper, but 

only when high aero loads compress the suspension at high speed, as the heave damper has some free 

travel before it starts to add stiffen the suspension it can’t be used for adjusting static ride height. The 





individual wheel dampers do apply some pressure to the suspension when at rest, but aren’t commonly 

used for setting ride height. 

Mechanical solution 

One solution put forward was a ratcheted system that keeps the ride height artificially low with a light 

suspension load and unlocks when the car is more heavily fuelled. I find this harder to believe as the 

suspension sees huge variance in load around the course of a lap, how it would identify the peak loads as 

being a heavy fuel load compared to say a bump makes the system hard to predict. Unless a solution that 

demands a suspension attitude that cannot be seen on track, such as raising both wheels to compress 

the heave damper car beyond normal limits to release a mechanism, this could possibly be done legally 

in the pit garage with the FIA’s knowledge. 

Repressurisation 





Another solution that seems altogether more feasible is the use of the gas charging cylinder within the 

damper. This cylinder normally acts to offset the motion of the damper rod inside the damper body. 

Charged with nitrogen, this does create some preload inside the damper. Teams are apparently allowed 

to recharge the nitrogen cylinder in Parc Fermé. Its believed that if the team were able to overpressurize 

the unit after qualifying with a low pressure, it would lengthen the damper, raise the ride 

height in order to offset the race fuel load. 

One additional scenario with this set-up, is the gas cylinder could be set up with a bleed valve, to allow 

a slow controlled pressure loss. This would allow the suspension to lower through the race and the fuel is 

burned off. 

On paper this appears to be a perfect solution to the problem. 





Cooling 

One further theory is that the dampers are sensitive to temperature, for example cooler dampers could 

provide a lower ride height. Its possible to envisage a case where teams chill their dampers, again 

possibly the gas cylinder to reduce the volume of the gas to shorten the damper and lower the ride 

height before qualifying. Then as the unit returns to ambient temperature the pressure increases and 

raises the ride height ready for the race. 

Over the course fo the Malaysian GP, we can expect to hear a lot of fuss about whether these solutions 

are being used. 

However the potential of changing ride height for just the critical 3mm difference in between Q and the 

Race remains a technical challenge, but one well worth exploiting. 

It is rumoured there are three possible solutions, although there may be more we have not heard of. 





21.7 FRONT WING BALLAST 



Despite the narrow front tyres teams are still aiming for a lot of weight at the front of the car. Slabs of 

ballast in the front wing are a popular method. Teams can run over 10Kg of tungsten in the front wing 

profile and have nose assemblies so heavy two mechanics need to carry them. Last year Toyota even 

used a trolley to help guide the heavy nose onto the car at pit stops. There are not any rules to limit the 

weight of ballast in this area. 





21.8 USE OF RAPID PROTOTYPING MATERIALS 



Something noted on the cars over the opening race of the year was the presence of matt black aero 

components on the cars. Not carbon fibre and not metal, the tell tale surface finish shows that teams are 

using parts manufactured in special resin produced in 3D printers via the technique of rapid prototyping. 

RP brake duct scoop as seen on a car at the 2010 Bahrain GP 

For some years Stereo Lithography (SLS) has been used at the factories to make parts for wind tunnel 

models, casting moulds and mechanical mock ups. SLS is the process of making a 3D part by solidifying a 

liquid or powdered resin, one a layer at a time. Even though hundreds of layers are required to make a 

single component, the process is now more commonly termed rapid prototyping (RP). This creates a 

solid 3D part often made with a distinctive orangey coloured resin. By taking the data from the teams 

CAD systems, RP allows parts to created accurately rapidly and also to a chosen scale. All without 

recourse to other machining or hand working. While this technology is commonly seen at the factory, 

the results had not been seen out on track as the resins were incapable of withstanding the stresses of 

mechanical, aero or thermal loads. Subsequent development of better materials has now allowed the 

teams to go from 3D CAD data direct to finished parts on the car. This short cuts the existing process to 

make parts from patterns, moulds and finally the laying up of carbon fibre. Reducing the lead time for a 

component from weeks to hours. Additionally the ability of RP to replicate the exact shape and thickness 

of the part as it was designed allowed designers and production engineers to create even more complex 

surfaces and wall thicknesses not easily created with carbon lay ups. Details such as wall thickness 

tapering into sharp edges and corners. As result a RP component can open avenues to designers not 

easily accessible with conventional manufacturing techniques. 





Teams are increasingly using RP (rapid prototyping) materials on the race car itself. Most commonly for 

the complex front brake duct scoops. I picked up on this when Red Bull first used them in 2006. In 

Bahrain 2010 several teams had the distinctive looking matt black ducts bolted to the front of their cars. 

Although the duct is not a highly stressed part, it does have to meet the airflow head on and is placed 

relatively near the front brakes, so when the car is at rest the heat will soon pass through to the duct. 

thus the component does suffer some stress and heat. Red Bull using the Windform XT RP material 

(Windform.it) are able to engineer a duct that copes with both the heat and loads seen by these 

components. Windform XT is Carbon filled PA resin, which is not as strong as carbon fibre, so it does not 

suit all structural parts. Previously the Red Bull used RP materials with an alumised coating to provide 

thermal protection, the more durable XT material alleviates the need for this secondary process, further 

enforcing the “rapid” element of RP. 

More intricate vents have been bonded into the carbon fibre endplate 

Lotus also appear to have used RP parts within their rear wing. On the rear wing endplate the stack of 

louvers were not molded into the carbon fibre, but rather made from RP material and bonded into the 

endplate. This is the first evidence I’ve seen of RPM being bonded to a carbon part. The benefit that the 

profiles and edges can be far sharper in RP than Carbon fibre. 

3DSystems_CS_Jordan_Motorsports.pdf 

3DSystems_CS_Minardi_Motorsports.pdf 

3DSystems_CS_RenaultF1.pdf 





21.9 BLOWN REAR WINGS: SEPERATING AND STALLING 



Renaults CFD shows how the flow passes around a multiple element rear wings 

For an F1 car the rear wing creates around a third of the cars downforce. But running at high speed the 

drag from the rear wing is tremendous. Anything that reduces the drag of the rear wing will aid top 

speed. If this can be done in a nonlinear way, that is; high downforce\drag at lower speeds increasing 

towards top speed and then less drag only at speeds where car is in a straight line and doesn’t need 

downforce, then lap times will show an improvement. 





A single element wing sees the flow separate (circle) at steep angles 

As airflows over the surface of a wing it has a tendency to slow down and separate from the wing. 

Particularly underneath the wing which runs at a lower pressure than the top surface. This separation 

initially reduces efficiency by adding drag to the wing, before the airflow totally breaks up and the wing 

stalls. When a wing stalls the wing loses most of its downforce and drag. 

A single element wing will then stall, as the flow breaks up under the wing 

The steeper a wings angle, the greater chance of separation. To combat this aerodynamicists need to 

speed up the flow near the wings surface, to do this they split the wing into separate elements, this 

creates a slot. Which sends high pressure air from above the wing through the slot, which then speeds 

the local flow underneath the wing. The more slots the steeper the wing can run. 

With a two element wing, flow passes through the slot to prevent seperation 

In the nineties, teams were unlimited in the number of elements they could use. Slowly the rule makers 

sought to reduce the wings potential for downforce and reduced the number of elements (defined as 

‘closed sections’ within the rules), initially to four then three and currently two. Modern rear wings are 

made up to two elements, a main plane (the forward section of wing) and a flap (which sits behind it). 

Thus the wing is intended only to have a single slot and hence only one place to speed up the flow under 

the wing. However the rules are typically vague, thus a small 15cm section in the middle of the wing is 

exempt from this rule, teams have been adding a slot in this area for several years now. This slot is the 





same dimension on the front as it is on the back of the wing, so there has been no issues of legality 

within the rules, most team run a wing of this configuration. 

Last year BMW Sauber and McLaren ran wings with the narrow 15cm opening on the front of the wing, 

but this inlet diverged to make a slot the full width of the rear wing (normally within the main plane). 

This slot was aligned to send its airflow at an acute angle, roughly in line with the general flow over the 

wing. Again this was deemed legal as the slot made the wing profile an ‘open section’ only in the middle 

of the wing, where as the outer spans remained a ‘closed section’ albeit one with a “U” shape. With this 

design the slot could allow the entire wing to be steeper and not just the geometry in the middle 15cm 

of the wing. This year Williams have joined the group running these sorts of wings. 

With a blown wing, the extra inlet\outlet creates a legal second slot 

Again previously teams have sought to use the wing stalling to gain top speed (from the reduced drag). 

By flexing the wings at higher speed, the wings move to create smaller slot gaps and this leads to the 

wings stalling. The FIA has acted with both load tests and in the past few year slot gap separators to 

prevent this practice. Slot gap separators are now mandated for the rear wing, and appear a plate fitted 

around the profile of the two wing elements to prevent them moving. 

The McLaren 2010 wing uses a slot in the flap (not the main plane), this time fed by the shark fin and an 

opening above the drivers head. If the teams’ protests about its legality are true, then the issue is that 

McLaren are using the slot to stall the wing. 

A slot in the flap could break up the airflow and allow the wing to stall 

This could be possible in several ways; one could be having the slot orientated differently to the airflow 

over the wing, if it were at nearer right angles to the flow it could blow hard enough to disrupt the 

airflow enough to stall the wing. Another solution might be that the slot blows at lower speed 

maintaining a clean airflow over the wing, then at higher speed the slot chokes with the greater airflow 

trying to pass through it, the slot no longer blowing stalls the wing. 





These approaches would have to be tuned to have no effect at speeds lower than the top speed on the 

straight, thus the wing would provide normal downforce until near top speed. Then near top speed the 

flow through the slot would start disrupt the wings flow and stall the wing. The difficulty in getting this 

tuning to work is what’s given rise to the rumour about the driver operated snorkel duct on the McLaren. 





21.10 ALL ABOUT BEAM WINGS 


(February 21, 2010) 

Mercedes: the beam wing is exposed and sits above the crash structure, allied to a small 

supplementary winglet Renault: the Beam wing is mounted to the central pylon, that also supports the 

top rear wing 

An increasingly common feature this year has been the choice of an exposed beam wing design. The 

beam wing is the single element wing that sits below the rear top wing. Normally this wing runs the full 

span of the allowable 800mm rear wing width, but often is split into two by the rear crash structure. In 

the rules the location of both the crash structure and beam wing are relatively fixed, the wing needs to 

sit between 300-400mm high and only sport one element, while the crash structure needs to be no 

higher than 400mm. Along the centre line of the car clearly they vie for the same space. 





The beam wing acts both as a wing in its own right, as a device that turns the airflow upwards improving 

the scavenging from the diffuser and the flow under the top rear wing. Recently, the increasing use of 

pylons to take the loads from the top rear wing into the chassis (via the top of the gearbox case) means 

that the structural demands of the beam wing are reduced, as it no longer has transfer the loads from 

the top Rear wing via the endplates into the chassis. If you ever get to pick up a structural beam wing 

you;d be surprised at just how heavy it is. Certainly not the piece of feather weight F1 bodywork you’d 

expect. 

But since 2009 when Toyota realised that the beam wing needn’t be compromised by the crash structure 

and shaped the structure to pass under the wing, allowing its more potent underside to be fully exposed 

to the airflow. In some respects Red bull followed this philosophy too, albeit the beam wing mounting 

was still a relatively obstructive section mounded into the crash structure. This year several teams have 

chosen to shape the crash structure to expose the beam wing. Although this does necessitate a more 

complicated shape which in turn affects the structures efficiency, in terms of meeting the crash test and 

adding extra weight. 

In Renault case the wing is supported by the same central strut that supports the rear wing, other teams 

use smaller mounts beneath the beam wing. Lastly Virgin took a cue from their Acura LMP car and used a 

swan neck mount that despite the tortuous load path, does provide less obstruction to the underside of 

the wing. 





21.11 XTRAC GEAR BOX 



Xtrac Project 1044 Gearbox 

Along with the Cosworth engine, the FIA have tendered for specification gearbox to be made cost 

effectively available to all teams. The British firm Xtrac won the tender and hence have returned to F1 as 

a complete transmission provider after an absence of over ten years. While the internals of the seamless 

shift gearbox are still secret (aside from the presence of a twin selector shift mechanism) the external 

details have been published through these pictures. Project 1044, as its known to Xtrac is was developed 

with the assistance Dallara, who gave input onto the external features for installation, aerodynamics and 

suspension. As the external case is used by both Hispania and Lotus we now have a clear idea of their 

rear suspension installation. Largely conventional in its layout, all of the features are common to those 

seen on other teams gearboxes. Despite the single specification of outer case, the gearboxes can be 

machined slightly differently to accommodate the chassis designers exact suspension geometry. 





Xtrac: The different mounting points for the rear suspension 

Xtrac: The ancillaries are typical example of a conventional F1 gearbox 





The aluminum case features cast mounting points for the; wishbones, Anti Roll Bar, torsion bars and 

dampers. These are all highlighted in the attached image, although the suspension rocker linkage is 

absent, but this is a team designed part, so it will vary slightly between the two teams. We could expect 

that the teams have a heave damper mounted between the rockers and passing across the top of the 

case, possibly in tandem with an inerter if the team have reached the stage where they have developed 

a set up to incorporate the device. 

In this bare guise Xtrac quote the complete units weight as “approximately 40kg”. 

Further information on Xtrac is available at www.xtrac.com. 





21.12 COSWORTH FORMULA 1 V8 

[Source: Racecar Engineering] 

The Cosworth CA2010 is the result of a unique 

combination of expertise, experience and innovation - 

the major elements that comprise the Cosworth factor. 

The process of designing an F1 engine is shrouded in 

secrecy in the ultra competitive world of Formula One. 

That Cosworth, the leading independent supplier of F1 

racing engines, is able to create competitive and affordable engines that conform to the sport's 

regulations, completing the design, development and validation within just nine months is an 

achievement that warrants further explanation. 

Cosworth has a strong pedigree in Formula One. In 41 seasons Cosworth has developed 16 engine 

families and raced 51 engine variants, all of which trace their design heritage back to the ancestor of all 

modern F1 engines; the Cosworth DFV. 

So what happens within the design offices of Cosworth to create a state of the art racing engine for 

Formula One, and how has Cosworth been able to bring the CA2010 to life in such a short space of time? 

As Lead Engineer James Allen explains, Cosworth's engineering heritage means the starting point is not a 

blank sheet of paper. 





"The 40 years that Cosworth has spent creating F1 engines means that we have a wealth of 

understanding in terms of what to do and what not to do when piecing the various assemblies of a new 

design together," he says. "The Cosworth heritage for our design teams is not the cars, drivers or 

trophies from the 176 wins or 23 championships; it's the knowledge that has passed from engineer to 

engineer over the decades." As James elaborates, the starting layout was completed relatively rapidly. 

"When we start a new engine the first task is to piece together a foundation using existing assemblies to 

meet the target requirements defined by either the regulations or the customer. Sometimes there is 

plenty of scope for variation and sometimes we are extremely limited. For the CA2010 the foundation 

began with the bore/stroke ratio and cylinder ‘V' angle, from which we laid out the cylinder block, head, 

timing gear and valve train. We knew it would need pneumatic springs and compliant gear train timing to 

rev to 18k and our extensive library of combustion profiles enabled us to define combustion chamber 

and piston crown shape pretty quickly." 

This basic laying out process employs the Cosworth knowledge base to select the optimal methods and 

designs first time. The fact that Cosworth "just knows" what sort of technologies are required is a result 

of the understanding gained from the sixteen F1 engine families that have already been developed by 

Cosworth. 

Cosworth engineering projects in aerospace, mainstream automotive, or performance sailing all employ 

lessons that have been learnt which allow Cosworth to "fast-forward" to the answer. 

Modifications - making the power, economy and reliability 

The next design phase is the crucial one for Cosworth's customers; ensuring that the engine delivers 

maximum power, using minimal fuel for its 2,200 kilometer racing life. As James highlights, the technical 

regulations on engine speed and fuel economy are driving development towards greener performance. 

"Essentially the most straightforward way to develop a higher power output is to rev to higher speeds - 

however this isn't an option and so for the CA2010 we have focused our development elsewhere," he 

says. "One area has been ensuring that the cam shaft drive and valve control is suitably precise so that 

we can deliver more power. Another has been to target transient fuelling and balancing the available 

torque and engine response so that fuel is not consumed to produce power that cannot be used on the 

track. In terms of ensuring reliability we have concentrated on those areas that endure the greatest 

stress in the engine such as the gudgeon pin that links the piston to the connecting rod. 





Simulation - predicting the performance 

The design teams at Cosworth rely heavily on computer simulation to test their additions and 

enhancements as they work toward a final solution. This method significantly reduces the cost and time 

required by minimizing the need for empirical investigation. But as James points out, this next step in the 

design process at Cosworth is also optimized to minimize cost and time. "Because we have a 

comprehensive understanding of the likely failure modes within an assembly and can model against our 

archive of data from previous projects, we can discard a significant number of potential designs without 

the need to simulate. Although simulation is an awful lot faster than manufacturing and testing every 

design variant, it still takes time and that's time we can save using our targeted methods," he says. 

Validation - confirming the performance 

Having agreed a specification for manufacture, the design team work closely with Cosworth's test team 

using the world leading transient dynamometers that are available at Cosworth's Northampton facility. 

As James explains, the aim is to understand the effect of any changes and confirm the simulated results. 

"It's hugely important for us to be able to carry out real world testing, to be as confident as possible that 

the effect of each modification enhances engine performance as predicted," he adds. Iteration - if there's 





more available, do it again Having learnt the lessons and understood the effects of the various 

modifications, the question for the design team is "can we repeat the modification and validation 

process to deliver a better solution? The nature of the small detailed changes that we implement often 

has a complex effect on the engine as a whole," says James. "We are always learning and this knowledge 

opens new development paths for us to follow. Our ability to carry out rapid iteration takes advantage of 

the result of each alteration to the working design." 

Termination - knowing when to stop 

Cosworth's experience is as important in completing a project as it is throughout the previous phases. 

Knowing when to stop to ensure a solution stays on schedule and within budget is critical throughout the 

various areas of Cosworth's business. The Cosworth CA2010 offers a model for the motive package for a 

sustainable Formula One, where the temptation to engineer miniscule performance improvements at 

colossal expense is resisted. "There is always more that we think can be done," explains Cosworth's 

Technical 

Director Bruce Wood. "That's part of why our design teams are successful. Understanding that a solution 

to an engineering challenge is about more than pure performance is critical. Cost and schedule are 





imperative, and while Formula One has always understood the time dimension, obtaining a sustainable 

future demands that we expend just as much effort on cost. I'm very pleased to say that my teams at 

Cosworth have done just that to deliver superb strong package for our teams." 





21.13 SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY DRIVES SUCCESS AT RED BULL RACING 

[Source: Racecar Engineering – Tuesday, 1 December 2009] 

It has been a good year for Red Bull Racing. The 2009 

RB5 car seemed to have reached an optimal sweet spot 

in its development. Steve Nevey, Business Development 

Manager and Technical Consultant at Red Bull Racing 

recently talked to us on the process of design and 

development at Red Bull Racing, and the benefit that 

simulation has had on the performance and safety of 

their Formula-1 cars. 

Red Bull Racing is a relative newcomer to the sport of F1. What is the history behind the team? 

It's true, although Red Bull has been involved in other high adrenaline sports for some time, our 

involvement as an F1 team owner is just a few years. The current Red Bull Racing operation has its 

origins in the Stewart Grand Prix team, created by 3 times World Champion Sir Jackie Stewart OBE, back 

in 1997. Since then the team has seen several ownerships, including campaigns as Stewart-Ford and 

most recently Jaguar Racing. With the financial and marketing support of our Austrian parent company 

Red Bull, Red Bull Racing was formed in 2005, and with our new Chief Technical Officer Adrian Newey, 

we set about to create the radical transformation in both the team and car that you see today. 

What is the nature of your Technical Supply Partnership with MSC.Software? 

The use of simulation technology plays a key role in F1 development, and is especially significant in 

today's environment of reduced budgets and limited testing opportunities. MSC.Software has been a 

Technical Supply Partner through the entire history of the team, since the first creation of the Stewart 

Grand Prix team in 1997. Today, Red Bull Racing mainly use the latest MD (multi-discipline) versions of 

MSC's Nastran and Adams products. MD Nastran is a general purpose Finite Element Analysis (FEA) 

solution. Our typical applications are linear and non-linear statics, frequency and vibration, and impact 

dynamics. Of particular value is the functionality for analyzing the composite materials which form a 

large part of the chassis and structural components of the RB5 car. Set-up is also critical to on-track 

performance, so we also use MD Adams to simulate and optimize the dynamic behavior of the 

mechanical assemblies in areas such as steering & suspension. 





Why did you select MSC.Software as your simulation partner? 

The initial interest was in the analysis of composite materials, for both the performance and safety 

aspects of the car's design. In 1997, the Stewart Grand Prix team took the decision to move to 100% 

computer aided design & engineering (CAD/CAE). At that time, MSC's Nastran and Patran/Laminate 

Modeller products already had an advanced composites analysis capability, and as the established 

market leader in related areas such as aircraft & space industries, MSC was the natural choice of partner. 

MSC's subsequent acquisition of MDI brought the Adams suite of tools into the portfolio, allowing us to 

also simulate the vehicles mechanical systems, and to generate more accurate set-up data and structural 

loadings. Both products are considered as industry standards, and we now use them under a token 

license system, allowing maximum flexibility of availability against demand. 

Can you explain more about your design process. How do you start to design an F1 car? 

The design process begins with the study of the FIA rules and their changes in the next season. Rule 

changes have a leveling effect across the teams, so like all of the teams we always look to use innovative 

design interpretation to gain advantage. A good example was the double-diffuser which appeared at the 

start of the 2009 season on the cars of Brawn GP, Toyota, and Williams. This design change provided a 

brief, but significant incremental advantage, which the other teams of course worked quickly to readdress. 

Although, individual aspects of the design, such as the diffuser, can have influence on 

performance, it is clear that an overall design approach is needed for a truly competitive car. This 

includes a complex mix of structural, aerodynamic, power, mechanical grip, and set-up considerations, 

all working together to create the optimum configuration. Of course it's not a static environment, new 

developments are introduced for virtually every race throughout the season, and our engineering teams 

need to be able to design, simulate, and manufacture new components and systems much more rapidly 

than is typical in a commercial production environment. 





Is the engine the starting point for the vehicle development? 

Yes, the engine is at the heart of the car. This is actually one of the few parts we don't design & 

manufacture ourselves - the RB5 is powered by an aluminum 2400cc V8 engine supplied by Renault. The 

transmission is created around the engine and a 7-speed gearbox, itself a highly stressed structural 

component which takes the connections and loads directly from the rear suspension. It is around these 

fixed points that we then design the chassis, both from a structural and aerodynamic perspective. Both 

aspects affect important considerations such as structural loadings, particularly the huge down-forces 

generated by the aerodynamic components, cooling, and weight distribution. Weight and stiffness are 

critical characteristics of a successful F1 car, and the challenge is to optimize these characteristics in a 

harmonious overall blend of all aspects of the design. 

To what extent does CAD/CAE integrate with each other, and your overall manufacturing process? 

Our design and simulation processes always run always in parallel with our production and testing 

operation. The basic design starts with a CAD model; for this we use the NX suite from Siemens PLM 

Software. From there the native geometry is passed directly to Patran, the pre-processor of the CAE 

process, in order to create a simulation model. We strive to simulate each aspect of the car as faithfully 

as possible, both in terms of its geometry and the physics of its properties and loading, so direct 

geometry transfer enables a quick and accurate base for the Finite Element mesh. Patran is also used to 

complete the material specification, including the composite lay-ups, and apply the boundary conditions 

and loadings. Advances in software technology have given us the opportunity to create increasingly large 

and physically complex simulation models, so a hardware configuration capable of efficient throughput 

of these models is also an important consideration. 





So which hardware systems do you use? 

Our partners for computer hardware are HP and IBM. Our CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) models 

are usually the most computationally expensive, so for these we typically use an IBM Blade cluster 

system, with several thousand AMD processors. Cluster efficiency is controlled by automated scheduling 

and management software from Platform Computing. Both hardware suppliers work with MSC to ensure 

that the Nastran and Adams products are also tuned for optimal computational performance on their 

systems. 

And how do you organize the computations? 

We have a simulation database, in which all computations are arranged and stored. This is both for 

efficiency and quality assurance, ensuring that each simulation is efficiently managed and auditable to 

the appropriate input sources and output results. In this way we are able to quickly interpret the findings 

of our simulations, and are confident of the integrity of the data. 

How do many computation engineers work in your team? 

We have recently increased the strength of our team, and currently about 20 people are involved in the 

design and simulation process. This was another reason why we changed the way we manage MSC's 

products from single stand-alone licenses to the MasterKey token system. We now use the flexibility of 

the token-based system to allow us to optimize the use of each of the software tools as the different 

demands of each stage require. 





So how do you see the value of simulation in F1, and in particular at Red Bull Racing, today? 

It's always been valuable. Compared to virtual simulation, physical tests are expensive to set up and run, 

and we are simply unable to test the quantity and variation of design scenarios which simulation easily 

allows. However the value has never been higher than today, for several reasons. Driver safety is a 

fundamental consideration, and all new chassis designs require FIA certification against specified crash 

scenarios for front, rear and side impact. Physical tests are still used, but up-front simulation of each 

crash scenario means that the successful test certification is all but guaranteed. Also, this season, on 

track testing is restricted to the two Friday race weekend sessions, leaving little time to interpret results, 

and to design and manufacture new components. Simulation is available to us through the season, and 

has therefore taken over as our main opportunity to create and test new designs, and to assess 

performance and reliability. 

What about the set-up configuration. How does simulation help here? 

The configuration of the car for individual races, and even specific racing conditions or drivers, is also 

highly simulated. About 10 MByte of data is generated by 160 sensors mounted on the cars, and a 

mobile monitoring area transmits on-track data to both Renault and Red Bull Racing engineers, both 

track-side and back at headquarters. The data is used as real-time monitoring, and is also processed 

through test-rig and simulation models in order to provide timely parametric input to enhance the racing 

set-up. The ability to simulate a range of alternative set-up parameters, and feed this back to our race 

engineers is invaluable. All else being equal, a great set-up can win or lose a race. 





So with all of the current simulation capability available to you, where do you see potential for further 

advancement? 

The use of composite materials continues to dominate much of the F1 car, and although the 

computational modeling is already sophisticated, further improvements in defining lay-ups, representing 

material performance, and modeling failure analysis are anticipated over the coming seasons. Multiphysics 

or multi-discipline simulation is another important area in which we anticipate further progress. 

Using MSCs latest MD (multi-discipline) software versions of Nastran and Adams, we already combine 

mechanism and deformable finite element simulations. We also increasingly use aerodynamic output 

directly from CFD analysis to generate more accurate loads for the structural simulations. There are rule 

restrictions to limit this, but multi-physics coupling of these effects allows us to legally enhance the 

performance of deformable components, for example to optimize down-force and drag characteristics 

for flexible wing components. Chaining the various analyses stages is time consuming and prone to error. 

As well as removing these limitations, coupled multi-physics simulation also allows an iterative 

interaction between the various behaviors, hence capturing more of the true physics into the simulation 

model. There are others, but like the F1 sport, simulation technology moves quickly, so we are confident 

that MSC's solutions will continue to keep pace with the unique demands of the sport. 

Go behind the scenes to see the design, development and construction of a Formula One car. Red Bull 

F1s business development manager, Steve Nevey, is your factory tour guide, giving you insight and 

detailed information on the rarely seen procedures and processes which have helped build the teams 

success in 2009. 

Click here to see the video “F1 Factory Tour Milton Keynes.avi”. 





21.14 SPLITTERS EXPLAINED 


(August 9, 2010) 

Although low down in a dark area of the car and 

hidden behind bargeboards, the front splitter has 

been a critical part of the F1 car for many years. 

Known by many other terms, such as the shadow or 

legality plate, T-tray or bib, I’ll refer to this part as 

the splitter. 

Since 1983 F1 cars have needed a flat floor inbetween 

the front and rear wheels, then this floor 

needed to be stepped since 1995. In the late 

eighties when designers were slimming and raising 

the nose of the cars, there was a need to create a 

floor section under the front of the monocoque to 

meet the flat bottom rules. The most obvious first 

splitter was the Tyrrell 019 with its fully raised nose, since then the splitter has been more and more 

exposed as teams seek to raise and narrow the chassis cross section for aerodynamic benefit. 

A splitters regulatory role has been to form the flat bottom of the car and from an attachment for the 

‘plank’ running along the length of the flat floor. Thus the splitter must form the flat floor at reference 

plane level (the datum level where all bodywork measurements are, although the plank sits below this 





level). The splitter must also shadow the plan profile of the monocoque, such that the monocoque 

cannot be viewed from beneath the splitter. 

However the need to have this bodywork forming the floor has been exploited and the splitter now 

forms aerodynamic and chassis functions of its own. As the term suggests the splitter separates the 

airflow passing under the raised nose between that which passes above and below the floor, equally its 

boats ‘bow’ shape above where it meets the monocoque also splits the airflow passing over the floor 

between left to right. Air then spills off the upper surface of the splitter and some of this will make its 

way under the floor and towards the splitter, thus the teams make use of this powerful flow to alter the 

pressure distribution across the underfloor to further improve airflow through the diffuser. allied to the 

fences, vortex generators and previously bargeboards, the splitter forms a critical role in the onset flow 

for the diffuser. 





Brawns 2009 ballasted splitter 

Being mounted low and far forward, the splitter also forms the location for ballast. Depending on the 

prevailing tyre and aerodynamic issues, teams can run as much as 50% of the cars weight on the front 

axle. with a rear engine car, the only way to do this is the ballast the front of the car and the splitter has 

been known to be made entirely from metal in order to maximise front end weight bias. Under the 

current aero and tyres rules, weight is somewhat more rearwards and the splitter is less heavily loaded 

with ballast 

Deflection 

In 2001 when the technical regulations demanded raised front wings (excluding the middle 50cm 

section) teams found the raised front ride height, cost downforce. Attempts were made to artificially 

lower the front wing when on track, both by flexing and by lowering front ride height. such is the 

geometry of the car, that the car cannot achieve enough rake to lower the front ride height without 

either excessive rear ride height or the splitter hitting the ground. A high rear ride height will cost rear 

downforce and stability, so the splitter needed to be moved out of the way. Teams found that deflecting 

the splitter upwards as it hits the track surface under braking allowed for lower ride heights. making the 

splitter far less stiff than it needs to be allowed the splitter to ride up without undue wear to the plank 

and skids which are measured in scrutineering for wear. Excessive wear to the skid block will bring 

penalties for the teams and drivers. 





Hinged splitters allow lower front ride heights 

However the FIA became wise to this practice and along with other deflection tests carried out on the he 

scrutineering rig, a test with push a hydraulic ram up from under the splitter was introduced. The car is 

bolted to the rig and the ram applies 200Kg of pressure to the front edge of the splitter, only 5mm of 

movement is allowed. this forced teams into running stiffer splitters and hence higher ride heights. 





A hydraulic ram rises from the test rig to measure deflection to the floor 

In order to regain the lower ride heights teams once again worked around the rules, by making the floors 

deflect at loads higher than the 200kg test. by hinging the splitter at its rear mounting and then making 

the front mounting a preloaded to 200kg. thus the floor will be be able to meet 200kg FIA test with little 

movement, but at loads over 200kg the front mounting will start to deflect and allow upwards 

movement for lower ride heights and more downforce. In Ferraris case this was a mounting with a small 

coil spring to provide the resistance to the 200kg load. McLaren had a pre-buckled stay, acting like a leaf 

spring between the floor and splitter. The justification for these very visible mechanical mounting was to 

avoid damage to the now very heavily ballasted splitter, when running over kerbs and bumps etc. 





Ferraris 2006 preloaded sprung splitter support 

One of the issues to fall out from the technical interchange between McLaren Mike Coughlan and Ferrari 

Nigel Stepney was Ferraris use of the splitter mounting. Knowing how Ferrari used the mounting allowed 

McLaren to ask the FIA technical delegate Charlie whiting for permission to use such as a system. this 

approach is a subtle workaround to a formal protest of another teams design, but ends up with the same 

result, either acceptance or a clarification banning the design. This issue arose at the start of 2007 and by 

the Spanish GP the teams were asked to remove deflecting splitter mounts, necessitating a redesign for 

most if not all teams. some people within the sport suggest Ferrari performance advantage from the 

previous few years was eroded by this rule change. since then teams run far stiffer splitter mountings 

and although several teams have been asked to revise their mountings since then by Charlie whiting, it is 

felt that there is little that can be done to deflect the splitter for performance benefit. 





As you can see, FW Ride height is restricted by the splitter, unless the splitter deflects upwards 

One of the explanations for the low wing ride height on the RB6 are suggested to be the splitter is 

allowing lower ride height by deflecting. Certainly trackside images suggest the Red Bull and the Ferrari 

are running significantly more rake in the set up at speed (i.e. nose down). Other teams suggest that this 

level of rake and low front wing ride height cannot be achieved with normal rear ride heights. But do not 

suggest how the car may be able to run that low. But the inference is that the splitter is in someway 

deflecting to allow this. I’ve not seen the detail of Red Bulls splitter mounting, but I doubt they are able 

to deflect the splitter without any obvious compliance in its mounting or undue wear to the skid blocks. 





On a side note, it was Coughlans assertion that the Ferrari splitter of 2007 was also being sprung to 

create a mass damper effect, with mass dampers being banned the previous year. 

Quote from Racecar-engineering.com “One of the defences used by McLaren was that Stepney, the 

former Ferrari employee, was ‘whistle blowing’ – something the court struggled to accept covered the 

whole affair, but it did certainly have an effect at the Australian Grand Prix. Ferrari won the race, but 

the FIA later outlawed the car’s floor. McLaren contended that the Ferrari that won was illegal, and a 

letter from Stepney to the FIA sent after the hearing revealed that it may well have been, as it was in 

effect a mass damper. Such devices were banned last season as they were controversially deemed to 

be a moveable aerodynamic device. 

Stepney reveals in detail the exact workings of the floor that was used at the race: ‘The front floor is 

attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point. The most forward 

support is a body with one compression spring and one tension spring inside which can be adjusted 

according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also a skirt that seals the floor 

to the chassis, which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help flexibility and reduce friction in the 

system. 

‘If the system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of development for other teams in 

such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the 

variable quantity of mass. The possible long-term consequences of such a system would be quite 

substantial because the system is in a crude state of development.’ 

The system detailed by Stepney allowed the F2007 to ride kerbs harder due to the 14-15mm deflection 

at the leading edge of the floor, which means the Ferraris could straight line chicanes more than other 

chassis. Front plank wear would also be reduced, allowing the car to run lower at the front, giving an 

aerodynamic gain. 

Stepney also explains the dynamic behaviour of the car, and the advantages the flexing floor gives: 

‘From around 160-180km/h (100-112mph) the car is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the 

floor, which multiplies up to nearly 19-20mm lower front wing height. The benefits in terms of ground 

effects and efficiency would be gained all around, with components like turning vanes and front wings 

at a reduced height relative to the ground.’ “ 

21.15 SPLITTERS : NEW DEFLECTION TEST AND CONSTRUCTION 


(September 10, 2010) 





The front splitter (bib or T-tray) has come in for some further attention from the FIA’s scrutineers. In 

order to run the front wing lower for greater downforce, its believed teams are allowing the splitter to 

deflect upwards. Although there is an existing test where the leading edge of the splitter is subject to a 

vertical load of 100kg and must not deflect more than 5mm. This is a long standing and the load was 

increased in 2007 and has now been increased to a 200kg load. 





Despite this test and the demand for minimal wear on the skid blocks set into the plank, even stricter 

tests and definitions are now required to ensure teams are not beneficially allowing the device to move. 

Thus there will be a new a set of demands for the splitter from Monza onwards. 

Firstly the construction of the splitter and plank are to be revised. The splitter or more specifically the 

stay the fixes the leading edge to the chassis must not consist of any articulated joints, such as springs 

bearings or any construction that would allow the stay to bend or buckle. Then the section of plank that 

sits beneath the splitter must be more than 1m long. It is thought that The shorter plank lengths are 

being used to allow the hinged mounting effect. 





As evidenced by the unusual wear beneath Mark Webbers Red Bull in Valencia, there is wear at the very 

leading edge of the plank, this is to be expected, but a second patch of wear started where the plank 

splits. It is likely that this area wears as the splitter deflects upwards forcing the leadign edge of the rear 

plank to hit the ground. Of course this wear is not illegal in itself, as its only the depth at the inspection 

hole sin the plank, that are measured. but this does gove some insight into how the floor is articulated. 

With the split in the plank allowing the t-tray to bend upwards, a longer front section of plank will mean 

the plank extends behind the obvious place for the splitter to hinge, adding to the stiffness of the 

assembly. 

While the construction demands are tightened it will be the revised deflection test that teams will have 

the most work to counter. The new deflection tests not only places a greater load (2000n) on the centre 

of the leading edge of the splitter, but also an offset test,. Which places a lesser load at a point upto 

10cm from the centre line of the splitter. The load this test applies to the splitter is an unusual request, 

possibly borne from the fact that wear is only measured on the centreline at leading edge of the plank. 

So teams might be allowing some twist in the splitter to for lower front ride heights, when the car is in a 

combination of pitch and roll. So while this twist will unduly wear the plank, it will not go detected as the 

wear is only measured within the 50mm dia hole at the centre front of the plank., As teams tend to run a 

single central stay at the leading edge of the splitter and have the leading edge of their splitter as very 

thin section. Most teams will need now to stiffen the leading edge of the splitter assembly, either via a 

thicker section or with additional stays. Any team making modifications has not necessarily been bending 

the rules, its just the new test is particularly severe and in a location not tested before. 

However teams that have been flexing their splitter will certainly be handicapped by these revisions to 

the rules, although Monza is a low downforce track that will not particularly punish cars without flexing 

splitters. 





Renaults Splitter at the R30's Launch 





21.16 THE PULLROD PHENOMENOM 

[Source: racetechmag.com] 

(by Peter Elleray - March 2010) 

























21.17 A GRIPPING TALE 

[Source: racetechmag.com] 

(by Pat Symonds - April 2010) 





























21.18 RED BULL PULL ROD SUSPENSION: WHAT IS LOOKS LIKE – HOW IT 

BENEFITS AERODYNAMICS 



Adrian Newey’s lateral thinking in 2009 gave rise to the modern iteration of pull rod rear suspension. 

Although handicapping the double diffuser, the solution remained on the Red Bull cars for 2010. With 

double diffusers being banned for next year, other teams are looking at the concept. Lotus Technical 

director Mike Gascoyne has even cited the opportunity to exploit pull rod suspension as a reason for 

going with Red Bull Technology for the supply of their 2011 gearbox. Pull rod may well be the buzz word 

at the launch of many of the 2011 F1 cars. 

Red Bull have been running a pull rod rear suspension since 2009, while not a new solution, no team had 

run this set up for many years, as the aerodynamic demands of the rear diffuser drove designers to place 

the spring and damper hardware up above the gearbox to create space for tunnels beneath the car. 





F1 rear suspension 

What the various suspension components are 

F1 cars operate substantially similar suspension front and rear, the packaging varies each end but the 

main components are the same. Double wishbones control the wheels attitude and from the outer end 

of the wishbone a rod controls a rocker that then activates the various elements that control the 

suspensions compliance. Firstly the springs are in the form of torsion bars, these are like straightened 

coil springs and their resistance to twist provides the springing medium to support the cars mass. Then 

the dampers, one for each wheel, these control the movement of the wheel as it raises and falls (bump 

and droop). The antiroll bar controls the amount of weight transfer from one side of the car to the other. 

Lastly the third spring, also known as a heave damper control the pitch movement (both wheel bump or 

droop simultaneously) This is especially important to prevent the downforce load pressing the car 

against the track and bottoming the car on the ground at high speed. Teams may also fit an inerter in this 

position to offset the uncontrolled bounce of the tyres having an effect on the chassis. 





Pushrod suspension: the high location creates free space either side of the gearbox for diffusers 

When the rods operating the rockers start out low at the outboard end of the wishbone and rise up 

towards the rocker, this is known as pushrod, as the rod pushes the rocker when the suspension is in 

bump. Conversely when the rod falls from the upper wishbone to operate a low placed rocker, this is 

known as Pull rod as the rod pulls the rocker. 





Pullrod suspension: note the space freed up above the gearbox 

Pull rod is nothing new, it first appeared in 1974 when Brabham designer Gordon Murray applied to the 

design to the front of the BT44. Murray admitted he saw the idea in a Hill climb car and simply applied 

his version of it to the F1 car. The alternative suspension designs of the time were either an outboard 

spring\damper, which was un-aerodynamic and restricted damper movement to that of the wheel. Or 

rocker arm suspension, with required large and heavy upper cantilever arms to operate an inboard 

spring\damper. This was heavy and only provided a low ratio of wheel to damper movement, but was 

moderately better aerodynamically. The pull rod employed light wishbones, placed very little structure 

into the airflow and gave the opportunity to alter the rate and ratio of wheel to damper movement. 

Murray subsequently turned Pullrod upside down to create the pushrod for the front suspension of the 

1983 BT52. 





Red Bulls Adoption of Pullrod 

When the aero rules changed significantly for 2009, most teams adopted fairly conventional approaches 

in the chassis design to accommodate the changes. One of the major aero changes was the switch to a 

much smaller rear placed diffuser, The loss in potential downforce from the smaller diffuser, made the 

rear wing performance a greater contributor to the cars total downforce. 

As intended the single diffuser freed up space around the gearbox and made the rear wing more 

critical 

Newey’s thinking for the RB5 was to create a low-line rear end, by placing the differential unusually low 

and switching from pushrods to pull rods. With the smaller diffuser runnels and moreover the tunnels 

starting as far back as the rear axle line, well behind the main body of the gearbox. This gave Newey the 

space to package the pull rod hardware and not interfere with the diffusers tunnels. As a result the 

airflow over the top of the gearbox to the rear wing was far less obstructed by the pushrod operated 

springs and dampers. This solution was clearly valid as the RB5 was the only car with a single deck 

diffuser to challenge the Brawn cars. However it exactly the reason the Brawn was so fast, that undid 

Newey’s low-line rear end philosophy. As the Brawn had a Double Deck diffuser (DDD) this solution 

found a loophole in the rules that created a secondary diffuser tunnel starting much further forwards 

and rising much higher. Suddenly in the race to also exploit this loophole, Newey found his Pullrod set up 

was occupying the exact same space that the DDD needed for the upper tunnels. Newey chose not to 





design a completely new rear end, and compromised the design of his DDD within the constraints of his 

pull rod suspension. 

With a double diffuser the longer taller upper deck occupies space around the gearbox 

For 2010 the car was designed with a DDD in mind, Newey was able to repackage the pull rod set up for 

even larger tunnels. He said that the choice of Pullrod for 2010 was still not the obvious way to go, but 

the team decided to stick with a proven pull rod rear end, rather than have to design an all new rear end. 

Other teams also looked at the feasibility of a Pullrod rear end, However no other teams followed this 

design path, with the exception of the Toro Rosso team who used the RB5 design in 2009 and simply 

revised it for their 2010 car. For 2011 the DDD is banned, with revised wording in the technical 

regulations outlawing the openings beneath the car to allow air to flow into the upper diffuser deck. 

Thus again we will see teams consider the pull rod layout for better airflow to the rear wing.3 





Which is better – Push or Pull 

In terms of their effectiveness as controlling the wheels, both are equal. In terms of effect on 

aerodynamics each has its merits depending on the prevailing rules and trends. However both have 

different benefits and demands on the chassis. Pullrod clearly provides a lower CofG, although access 

can be an issue. In Red Bulls case they place the 3rd spring and inerter horizontally across the front of 

the gearbox. This means one sits above and the other below the shaft connecting the engine to the 

clutch. These can only be accessed when the gearbox is removed and are subject to a lot of heat. 

Although Newey tells me that they do not suffer unduly because of this. One difference is in the load 

passed through the wishbones. 

Reaction forces (Red Arrows) mean pull rod placed higher loads on the upper wishbone 

As per Newton’s third law, the rod has to react to the force of the springs. This passes back from the 

rocker to the mount on the wishbone. In pushrods case, this reaction force is in the opposite direction to 

the force fed from the wheel into the chassis, the two offset each other. With Pullrod the force from the 

rod and the wheel act in the same direction, this doubles the load in the upper wishbone and resultantly 

in the mounting the gearbox. This can be accounted for design and weight of the final wishbone design. 

However Pushrod also has its structural problem, the pushrod when the suspension in in bump (wheel 





rising) the rod is in compression and would tend to bow outwards. The pushrod was the first suspension 

component to have carbon fibre cladding for reinforcement, again design and weight is needed to offset 

this load. Suspension experts point out that Pull rod suffers similar compression bending when the 

suspension is in droop (wheels falling), but droop is considered less critical in wheel control, than bump. 

There’s no one answer to which is best, you look at your design requirements and pick which solution 

works, best. Next year the best car is not necessarily going to be the one with Pullrod rear suspension. 

Pullrods at the front? 

Minardis 2001 PS01 used a low nose and pull rod front suspension 

This was a favoured design for many years, even after Murray innovated with the BT52. However 

designers found they could slim the nose cross section by mounting the spring\dampers above the 

drivers legs and no longer to each side of his shins. This improved access, even if it did compromise CofG 

slightly. Then as the raised nose aerodynamic concept took hold, teams found the gains from a high 

nose, offset the CofG gain of pull rod suspension. Arrows campaigned their A21 in 2000 with pull rod 

front suspension, and latterly Minardi ran the PS01 with a relatively low nose in 2001. Each team 

subsequently moved to a fully raised nose pushrod suspended car. Now the front of the chassis is raised 

too high for a pull rod to work, the angle from the upper wishbone to the chassis is nearly horizontal. 





This geometry meaning that almost no movement of the pull rod will occur as the suspension moves. 

Making the set up structurally inefficient. 





21.19 HOW LOW CAN YOU GO ? 


(October 2010) 





























21.20 MOVING PARTS 


(October 2010) 

















21.21 KERS ANATOMY 



With KERS being revived and expected to race again next year, let’s just recap what hardware’s involved 

and how its packaging affects the car design for 2011. KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) is a hybrid 

drive system that the FIA allowed to be raced as part of the 2009 major rules rewrite. It allows energy to 

be harvested under braking and stored, then that energy can be released to provide a power boost for 

around 6s per lap. In 2009 most engine manufacturers developed their own KERS system, while Williams 

were the sole team developing a system independently. Albeit not every team raced with KERS and some 

teams dropped KERS at various races. For 2010 FOTA agreed to drop KERS, albeit it was still legal with in 

the rules, as a cost cutting measure it was best not to run or develop KERS any further. Even within 2009 

season KERS was not a huge success, the system had a FIA cap on the amount of energy that could be reused, 

only 400kJ could be stored, which when used for 6.7s per lap, the car gained some 80hp. Thus 

although a 0.3s boost to lap times, the system was ultimately limited in its potential to improve lap 

times. Thus no team could create a competitive advantage from a more powerful system. Then the 

weight of the system created issues, At a time when the wider front slick tyres demanded an extreme 

weight distribution of up to 49% weight on the front axle, the 25+Kg of a KERS system mounted behind 

the center of gravity handicapped teams being able to push weight forwards. Most teams dropping or 

not racing their system cited weight as the main reason for its loss. 

What is a KERS system? 

In essence a KERS systems is simple, you need a component for generating the power, one for storing it 

and another to control it all. Thus KERS systems have three main components: The MGU, the PCU and 

the batteries. They are simply laid out as in the diagram below: 





In detail 

MGU (Motor Generator unit) 

Marelli MGU as used by Ferrari and Renault 

Mounted to the front of the engine, this is driven off a gear at the front of the crankshaft. Working in 

two modes, the MGU both creates the power for the batteries when the car is braking, then return the 

power from the batteries to add power directly to the engine, when the KERS button is deployed. 

Running high RPM and generating a significant Dc current the unit run very hot, so teams typically oil or 

water cool the MGU. 

Batteries 

McLaren Mercedes Battery Pack complete with water cooling system 

During the 2009 season only electrical batteries were used, although at least two flywheel systems were 

in development, but unraced. We will focus on the arrays of lithium-ion batteries that were raced. Made 

up of around 40 individual cells, these batteries would last two races before being recycled. In McLaren’s 

case these were mounted to the floor in the sidepods beneath the radiators. Other teams mounted them 

in a false bottom to the fuel tank area for safety in the event of a crash. Being charged and discharged 

repeatedly during a lap, the batteries would run very hot and needed cooling, this mainly took the form 

of oil or water cooling, and again McLarens example had them pack water cooled with its own pump and 

radiator. 





PCU (Power Control Unit) 

McLaren Mercedes PCU 

Typically mounted in the sidepod this black box of electronics served two purposes, firstly to invert & 

control the switching of current from the batteries to the MGU and secondly to monitor the status of the 

individual cells with the battery. Managing the battery is critical as the efficiency of a pack of Li-ion cells 

will drop if one cell starts to fail. A failing cell can overheat rapidly and cause safety issues. As with all 

KERS components the PCU needs cooling 

Ancillaries 

Marelli prototype PCU 

Aside from these main components the KERS system also integrates with the FIA SECU in order to control 

and monitor the PCU. KERS has to be driver activated; this is achieved from a steering wheel button. 

Although the drive has to initiate the KERS boost, the teams set the system up such that the driver knows 

to engage the system out of specific corners, the system then delivers the predetermined amount of 

boost specific to the demands of that section of track. In practice the KERS systems is being charged and 

discharged to this preset map of activations. Which smoothes the balance between charging and 

discharging, so the system does not overcharge above the regulatory limit. Again the SECU ensures no 

more than the capped amount of energy is delivered each lap. 





KERS in 2011 

With KERS return to F1 next year, the designers are faced with the same operating requirements in 

terms of energy storage and discharge. But the packaging requirements of the systems have changed in 

the two years since its introduction. Firstly the penalty of weight distribution has eased. With narrower 

tyres and the move to a fixed weight distribution for the Pirelli tyres, means that 25kg KERS system no 

longer tip the weight balance the wrong way. Plus there will be a higher minimum weight limit for next 

year. But challenging the designers will be the amount of space to package the hardware. With the ban 

on refuelling, teams have enlarged the fuel tank into the sidepods to create sufficient capacity, already 

the sidepods are full of longer narrower radiators and the gearbox oil coolers have been moved to above 

the gearbox to save space in the sidepods. Then the aerodynamically undercut shape of the sidepods 

robs yet more volume. 

Given the success of McLarens sidepod mounted solution in 2009 and the safety concerns that dogged 

the systems introduction, means that teams will probably opt for sidepod mounting of the Batteries and 

PCU. Especially as to expand the fuel tank area to mount the batteries as in 2009 will create a huge bulky 

rear to the monocoque. There will no doubt be an aerodynamic penalty to the slightly bulkier sidepods 

to house the hardware and additional cooling. This needs to be less than 0.3s lap time penalty in order to 

offset the gain from the power boost. Even with the gains and losses in lap time with a KERS system, 

teams may opt to run the system simply to use it for an overtaking aid in the race. Off the line and onto 

long straight the boost might be enough to overtake a rival. 

Hydraulic KERS 

A filament wound carbon fibre Hydraulic Accumulator 

A further alternative to the generation and storage of energy is to use hydraulics. This system has some 

limitations, but with the capped energy storage mandated within the rules the system could see a short 

term application. Separate to the cars other hydraulic systems, a hydraulic KERS would use a pump in 





place of the MGU and an accumulator in place of the batteries. Simple valving would route the fluid into 

the accumulator or to the pump to either generate or reapply the stored power. Hydraulic accumulators 

are already used in heavy industry to provide back up in the event of failure to conventional pumped 

systems. 

Using filament wound carbon fibre casing, an accumulator of sufficient capacity could be made light 

enough to fit into the car (see http://www.ctgltd.co.uk/page/hydraulicaccumulators/47). They might be 

capped in terms of practical storage with in the confines of an F1 sized system, but McLaren had 

prepared just such an energy recovery system back on the late 90s, but it was banned before it could 

race. With the relatively low FIA cap on energy storage, just such a system could be easily packaged, the 

hydraulic MGU would be sited in the conventional front-of-engine position and the accumulator, given 

proper crash protection fitted to the sidepod\fuel tank area. Saving space would be minimal control 

system (equivalent to the PCU) as the valving to control the system could be controlled by the cars main 

electro hydraulic system. McLaren have recently been quoted as saying the 2011 KERS would be more 

hydraulic and less electronic. Giving rise to speculation that a hydraulic storage system could be used. 

Flywheels 

A Flybrid Flywheel system, similar to that intended for the 09 Honda F1 car 

As Li-ion batteries are still an expensive emerging technology, plus they have associated risks, recycling 

and transport problems. The attraction of flywheel KERS is obvious, however no team have raced such a 

system in F1. Flywheels can effectively replace the Li-ion batteries with in a typical KERS system, the 

flywheel being mated to a second MGU to convert the power generated by the primary MGU on the 

engine into the kinetic to be stored in the flywheel. Williams are believed to have just such a system. 

However the simper flywheel solution is connect the flywheel system via a clutched and geared 

mechanism. HondaF1 had developed this solution for their 2010 car. This solution was dropped as Honda 

pulled out and the renamed Brawn team needs to focus development resources into the new car and its 

conversion to Mercedes power. The Flybrid made system would have sat with in the fuel tank area 





coupled to the crankshaft. This created a system simpler system of equal weight to a typical KERS. The 

main components being the flybrid flywheel and Torotrak system, plus a relatively small ECU, no 

additional cooling would be required. Thus the system could be far easier packaged into the chassis 

robbing just 13l of fuel tank space. A proposal was made to the FIA for a supply of this system to every 

team on the grid as a cost cutting measure. It seems the FIA did not take up this offer. So it seems this 

technology may be resigned to lower Formulae or non Motorsport applications. 

Linked images copyright 

Generic KERS diagram – Craig Scarborough ScarbsF1.com 

McLaren KERS – Racecar-engineering.com 

Marelli KERS Highpowermedia.com 





21.22 EXHAUST BLOWN DIFFUSERS: PICS FROM THE PAST 


(November 11, 2010) 

In previous articles on the subject, Craig explained the Renault Re40 was the first F1 car to blow 

the diffuser (1983 first year of flat bottoms). He got these pictures today and felt it was worth 

sharing them along with some insight from the man who brought the idea into F1, Jean Claude 

Migeot. 

This is what Jean Claude Migeot told Craig about the development: 

“Exhaust blowing was on my menu of aero development during the first year of the flat bottom 

era (1983) as one possibility to recover some downforce. I was in Renault at the time in charge of 

aero and, after some checks on the engine bench as we were terrified to face another lag time (!) 

between throttle movement and downforce creation, I was given the green light to experiment in 

the tunnel. Exhaust blowing to create a fluid skirt on the side of the car (also tested early 1983) 

did not worked but blowing the rear diffuser was quite powerful (I remember something like 50 

kg on the rear axle at full throttle whatever the speed). 

It was introduced at Monte Carlo in 1983 on the RE40 and stay on it most of the season. It was 

kept on RE50 the year after (ask Derek Warwick!) and I introduced it also on the F1/86 (Canada 

1986) when I worked for Ferrari later. 

I remember well that in 1983 we were immediately protested by Brabham and Gordon Murray 

(on the basis of the exhaust blowing being a movable aero device) but Renault managed to win 

that case. A pity they did not return the favor to Brabham at the end of the season!!! 

Diffuser blowing is specially good for traction out of slow corners but it has its downsides too. It 

increases balance sensitivity to throttle position which may create problems on high speed 

corners. Good and bad sides are quite depending on the driving style too: some drivers can take 

advantage of it more than others. The gas momentum available in the exhaust today is anyway 

much reduced compared to the turbo era (about 50%)”. 









The Renault RE50 from 1984 split the 1.5l V6 twin turbo exhausts into two, plus the wastegate pipes, to create six outlets in the diffuser 





From beneath you can see how the exhausts extend inside the diffuser (Copyright: JC Migeot) 





The Benetton B196 blew the pair of exhausts from the Renault V10 into the centre of the diffuser 





21.23 2010 F1 CIRCUITS : GEARBOX & ENGINE STRESS DATA 

[Source: Formula1 tech and art’s blog by Michalis K. Bar555] 

Gear 

changes 

per lap 

Full 

throttle 

(%) 

Longest 

flat-out 

section (m) 

Longest 

flat out 

time (sec) 

Bahrain (Sakhir) 58 63-65 1,050 14 

Australia (Melbourne) 60 65-69 735 10 

Malaysia (Sepang) 60 64 830 12 

China (Sinopec) 52 55 1,370 19 

Spain (Catalunya) 44 58 1,140 16 

Monaco (Monte Carlo) 54 42 510 8 

Turkey (Tepeoren) 42 62-63 1,200 16 

Canada (Montreal) 48 57-60 1,005 13 

Europe (Valencia) 74 59 930 13 

Great-Britain (Silverstone) 44 62-64 890 12 

Germany (Hockenheim) 42 63 n/a 14.9 

Hungary (Hungaroring) 50 58 750 11 

Belgium (Spa-Francorchamps) 52 72 1,865 24 

Italy (Monza) 46 76 1,320 15.5 

Singapore (Marina Bay) 76 44-48 650 9 

Japan (Suzuka) 42 67 1,230 16 

Korea (Yeongam) 47 53 1,250 n/a 

Brazil (Interlagos) 38 63 1,220 17 

Abu Dhabi (Yas Marina) 52 60 1,173 n/a 





21.24 2010 F1 CIRCUITS : SPEED DATA 


Top Speed 

(km/h) 

Average Speed 

(km/h) 

Bahrain (Sakhir) 314 210 

Australia (Melbourne) 303 225 

Malaysia (Sepang) 305 213 

China (Sinopec) 308 206 

Spain (Catalunya) 308 209 

Monaco (Monte Carlo) 278 158 

Turkey (Tepeoren) 315 221 

Canada (Montreal) 323 206 

Europe (Valencia) 313 198 

Great-Britain (Silverstone) 305 232 

Germany (Hockenheim) 315 219 

Hungary (Hungaroring) 291 195 

Belgium (Spa-Francorchamps) 325 234 

Italy (Monza) 336 251 

Singapore (Marina Bay) 297 168 

Japan (Suzuka) 313 231 

Korea (Yeongam) 310 197 

Brazil (Interlagos) 308 215 

Abu Dhabi (Yas Marina) 317 198 





21.25 2010 F1 CIRCUITS : GENERAL DATA 


Lap 

Length 

(Km) 

Laps 

Race distance 

(Km) 

Track 

Direction 

Bahrain (Sakhir) 6.299 49 308.405 Clockwise 

Australia (Melbourne) 5.303 58 307.574 Clockwise 

Malaysia (Sepang) 5.543 56 310.408 Clockwise 

China (Sinopec) 5.451 56 305.066 Clockwise 

Spain (Catalunya) 4.655 66 307.104 Clockwise 

Monaco (Monte Carlo) 3.34 78 260.520 Clockwise 

Turkey (Tepeoren) 5.338 58 309.356 Anti-clockwise 

Canada (Montreal) 4.361 70 305.270 Clockwise 

Europe (Valencia) 5.419 57 308.883 Clockwise 

Great-Britain (Silverstone) 5.901 52 306.747 Clockwise 

Germany (Hockenheim) 4.574 67 306.458 Clockwise 

Hungary (Hungaroring) 4.381 70 306.663 Clockwise 

Belgium (Spa-Francorchamps) 7.004 44 308.176 Clockwise 

Italy (Monza) 5.793 53 306.720 Clockwise 

Singapore (Marina Bay) 5.067* 61 308.95 Anti-clockwise 

Japan (Suzuka) 5.807 53 307.573 Clockwise 

Korea (Yeongam) 5.621 55 309.155 Anti-clockwise 

Brazil (Interlagos) 4.309 71 305.909 Anti-clockwise 

Abu Dhabi (Yas Marina) 5.554 55 305.361 Anti-clockwise 

*Start and finish lines are not in the same place. 





21.26 TYRE COMPOUNDS FOR THE 2010 SEASON 


Super Soft Soft Medium Hard 

Bahrain (Sakhir) X X 

Australia (Melbourne) X X 

Malaysia (Sepang) X X 

China (Sinopec) X X 

Spain (Catalunya) X X 

Monaco (Monte Carlo) X X 

Turkey (Tepeoren) X X 

Canada (Montreal) X X 

Europe (Valencia) X X 

Great-Britain (Silverstone) X X 

Germany (Hockenheim) X X 

Hungary (Hungaroring) X X 

Belgium (Spa-Francorchamps) X X 

Italy (Monza) X X 

Singapore (Marina Bay) X X 

Japan (Suzuka) X X 

Korea (Yeongam) X X 

Brazil (Interlagos) X X 

Abu Dhabi (Yas Marina) X X 





21.27 SPRING – LESS REAR SUSPENSION – A QUIET REVOLUTION 


(December 3, 2010) 

In the latter part of the year suggestions were that teams were discarding the rear side springs to allow 

very soft rear ends. This has proved to be the case, in the past few years teams have been removing 

their rear torsion bars to gain greater control of suspension set up. This revolution has been quietly 

spreading as many teams have gone this route. 

An early sign springs were being removed was the I-Racing game, which accurately modeled the FW31 

with the Williams teams assistance, the game provided no scope for rear springs. Equally comments 

made by Anthony Davidson over the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix weekend suggested that McLaren’s extreme 

stiff front\soft rear was due to this set up. Leading to Buttons problems locking up the inside wheel 

under braking. Closer investigation with technical people close to the sport prove this to be case and the 

practice is widespread amongst several teams, already McLaren and Williams are highlighted as adopting 

this practice, but Toyota and red bull are sporting this set up, by virtue of their gearbox supply this 

suggests that force India and Toro Rosso have the option too. Although this seems to be a relevantly 

recent practice as most teams first designed this into the 2009 cars, albeit it may have been tested or 

raced before then. 

Suspension on F1 cars has the joint purpose to control the cars attitude both for aerodynamics and tyre 

dynamics. These often contradictory requirements have lead to compromises, largely against tyre 

performance and more to the benefit of aero control. Aerodynamicists want the car to run flat (or raked) 

with little change in roll or ride height. For mechanical grip the car needs softer attitude control. This has 





lead F1 cars to run quite stiff front ends and softer rear ends, both in roll and heave. A soft rear ARB 

creates more mechanical grip, which then in turns needs to be controlled by a stiff front anti roll bar. For 

aerodynamics reasons the front wing and splitter like to be flat to the track surface to gain most 

downforce, thus this also tends to require a stiff anti roll bar. 

At the extreme end of this set up characteristic this has been exhibited most clearly in McLarens 

handling. The car gains traction from the soft rear anti roll bar, but the stiff front roll bar means that the 

rear heavy car tends to roll at the rear and this picks up the inside front wheel going into turns. 

On a side point although McLaren run what has been called a stiff front axle, their apparent problem 

with grip over bumps going into turns is not necessarily a reflection of this set up, more that the cars 

aero requires tight ride height control, it is possible to run stiff anti roll bar and still have a compliance 

for coping with bumps. 

Heave is when the car moves vertically, thus both wheels are rising or falling together 

In a typical rear suspension the effect of heave is that the heave spring (blue) and each side spring 

(yellow) is providing stiffness. The dampers (Red) damp the motion. 





Roll is when the car tilts, thus one wheel is rising and one is falling 

In a typical rear suspension the effect of Roll is the ARB (orange) and the side springs provide the 

stiffness. Again, the Dampers (Red) damp the motion 

Single wheel bump, which tends to be for riding kerbs or bumps in the track is a secondary requirement 

to heave and roll control, spring rates are not normally tuned for this requirement, instead the cars 

dampers allow freer suspension movement when the wheel suddenly rises up at a greater rate than 

normal, the damper has different rates for the wheel rising at different speeds, known as low speed (the 

cars chassis moving slowly i.e. pitch roll) high speed (bumps) and often a tertiary setting known as ‘blow 

off’ where the damper will provide a far lower damper rate for extreme wheel speeds such as kerbing. 

Hence in both heave and roll the side springs are providing additional stiffness to the effective spring 

rate, thus both roll and have are coupled to the rate of the side springs. If we can do away with the side 

springs then both roll and have can be totally independent and controlled by their relevant springs. If you 

need a softer ARB rate, then the side springs are the limiting factor. 





When you do away with the side springs, the heave and roll bar rates are higher in order to replace the 

spring rate added by the side spring. As long as each of these devices has a wide enough range of springs 

then there is no loss in control. 





It’s noteworthy that both rear dampers are used, in the nineties we saw monoshock front ends, which 

utilised both a single spring and single dampers. But monoshocks only have one damper so the control of 

roll is undamped. With a side spring-less set up there’s two dampers, controlling roll motion. Which is an 

obvious improvement in vehicle control over Monoshocks. 

Although there are some set backs with a side spring-less set up, some suspension designers want a non 

linear rate to the heave and wheel rates and sometimes different rising rate curve for each of these 

elements. This is achieved by the linkage (pushrod or pullrod) and the rocker geometry, going for side 

spring-less set up prevents having differing wheel and heave spring rising rates. In some engineers 

opinions, this is the removal of a needless layer of complexity. 

A heave element not only supports the rear axle heave motion, but the element provides a non linear 

rate. Ground clearance is used up through downforce compressing the suspension as speed increases. 

The heave element has a range of free movement, this is taken up as ride height lowers until the then 

the heave spring itself (or Belleville stacks or bump rubbers) come into effect and add considerable rate 

to the heave motion. This prevents grounding or choking the underfloor through low ground clearance. 





Equally making set up changes is both simplified and complicated. Engineers can now change either roll 

or heave rates independently, before changing a changing torsion bar effectively altered both. But 

changing a torsion bar, while not a quick task was the switch of an isolated component. Now teams will 

need to change the entire heave spring or ARB assembly. 

An additional benefit is if a team wants to commit fully to the side spring-less set up, the packaging of 

the suspension becomes far easier, no longer having to package long torsion bars. This is perhaps a 

reason why Red Bull were able to effectively package the pullrod set up, as the pivot for the rocker is 

near vertical, fitting a torsion bar in this position would have been be tricky. 

With the design of next years car leading towards a widespread adoption of pullrod, the option to adopt 

side spring-less will be attractive to aid packaging. Although the side spring-less pushrod set up will also 

allow dampers and rockers more freedom to be packaged at the front of the gearbox casing. Adoption at 

the front of the car is possible too, there is lesser need as the front roll rate is higher and the torsion bars 

can add to the effective rate. But simpler packaging and tuning may still be attractive for a designer. 





21.28 TYRE TESTING SENSORS – WHAT WAS SEEN IN ABU DHABI 


(December 2, 2010) 

The recent Young Driver and Tyre test in Abu Dhabi was a rare chance to see F1 cars in pure testing 

mode. Although team’s programmes varied, many teams used the test to gather ‘before and after’ data 

to see the effect of the change to Pirelli tyres. A change in supplier will have an impact not only on tyre 

usage, but also subtle change in tyre shape which will also affect aerodynamics. Hence we saw teams 

with a wide range of tyre temperature monitoring and air flow mapping sensors. 

Since the introduction of the SECU teams have had to keep their telemetry system separate to the 

chassis engine management functions. For simplicity the race weekends tend to gather telemetry from 

the SECU and its homologated sensors. In testing the car is rigged up with dedicated data acquisition 

hardware and sensors. Some of these are complimentary to the normal range of sensors and are hardly 

seen, while some systems are fitted only for specific runs aimed at gathering a specific type of data from 

the car. 





Tyre Temperature 

Often run on race weekends, normally only for Friday practice, tyre temperature can be measured in 

several ways. Either by simple infrared sensors looking at specific band of the tyre, cameras monitoring 

the entire tread width and even wheel mounted sensors measuring the carcass temperature inside the 

tyre. 

Simple Infra Red (IR) Sensors 

Force India used simple IR sensors to measure a band of tyre temperature 

The simplest sensors are IR sensors, they only look at one band around the tyre and hence they tend to 

look at the inside tread, due to the suspension camber loading this section of tyre most heavily. These 

sensors need to be in relatively close proximity to the tyre, and hence packaging can be an issue. They 

will map a single temperature over time. 





On race weekends these can be seen on the floor in front of the rear tyre, a specially design niche in the 

floor allows a smooth cover to be fitted over the sensor and provide a route for cabling to enter the cars 

wiring loom around the gearbox engine interface. They are more difficult to package at the front, before 

the 2009 wide front wing rule the front wing endplate provided a useful location to mount a sensor, 

albeit one that only measured when the wheel was in the straight ahead position. 

Before 2009 the endplate provide a home for a single 2D sensor 





FIF1 used the usual floor mounted sensor, plus this endplate mounted one 

In testing teams prefer to fit booms to the upright to have a single or array of sensors to steer with the 

wheel, thus getting data from around the whole lap rather than the few moments when the cars is in a 

straight line. Both Williams and Force India exploited these booms in the recent test. While red bull had a 

cable hanging from beneath the front wing, suggesting they had fitted an IR sensor there. 





Without the wheel fitted you can see the array of three sensors 





Williams used these booms in Abu Dhabi 





IR Cameras 

Force India also use IR cameras to measure the entire width of tyre temperature 

A more recent development has been the adoption of IR cameras to monitor the entire width of the 

tread through out the lap. Pioneered by McLaren in 2003, using Thermoteknix hardware, the set up has 

since been adopted by most teams and teams outside of F1. The tiny camera is easy to package and have 

been used in heavy industry, they are rugged enough for F1 too. As the camera can be focused to look at 

the entire face of the tyre and from a distance, their positioning much easier. They no longer need to be 

mounted to the upright to steer with the wheel, as the camera will automatically pick up the edge of the 

tyre and read the temperature across the full profile. Although the camera sees the entire face of the 

tyre, it narrows down the data collected to just a strip across the tyre. The resulting data plotted as a 

graph of time versus position over time. 





This provides freedom to mount the camera in one of many locations; they are often inside the mirror 

casing or in the sidepod fronts for the front tyre camera, while the rear tyres are easiest monitored form 

a pod mounted on the floor ahead of the rear tyre. Force India fitted their rear tyre camera on the roll 

hoop fitted inside a dummy FOM camera pod. 





Virgin used tyre cameras mounted inside holes in the sidepod 





Sauber used a grey 'camouflaged' IR Camera inside the pod wing 





Tyre Carcass temperature sensor 

Beru have this wheel mounted IR sensor system to measure temperature inside the tyre 

Measuring the temperature of the surface of the tyre is one factor; the temperature of the core of the 

tyre is harder to measure. Simply measuring the temperature of the gas inflating the tyre is not accurate 

enough. Beru have developed a wheel mounted IR sensor for measuring the inside surface of the tyre. 





Tyre shape 

A tyres shape is not a simple cylinder, the tyre in fact has a complex shape, as the tyre deforms in both 

side and front elevation as it contacts the track. This shape changes with steering and speed/downforce. 

Mapping this complex dynamic shape is important as it will feed back to correlate to the shape seen on 

the rubber wind tunnels tyres provided by Pirelli and also modeled in CFD. The shape changes are subtle, 

but equally very different to the Bridgestone and the flow off the front wing and around the rear end will 

be heavily influenced. 

Ferrari fitted a pod inside the diffuser view the tyre 

Ferrari modeled the side profile of the tyre in detail using special pods, there were two pods fitted to the 

left hand of the car, one at the front and another at the rear. The front tyre pod fitted to the upright to 

turn with the wheel, while the rear pod was placed inside a cutaway section of the diffuser, the exhaust 

resited to blow away from the sensors. This would have impacted aero but the test results would still be 

representative enough for the team. 





Williams used this 'Rake' an array of pressure taps to map the flow off the wheel 

Williams and latterly McLaren also mapped the flow off the front tyre, to do this an array of pressure 

taps were fitted to a boom that could rise and lower to get a wider map of the flow. These would see 

how the tyre affected the flow off the front wing; tests were repeated with both tyres using a baseline 

set up on the car, so as not to confuse the results. 





McLaren Electronic Systems (MES) – Sensors 

As well as providing the SECU and other homologated electronics on the cars, MES also produce this 

range of Tyre temp sensors. 

McLaren Electronics produce this simple IR Sensor 

This MES sensor is an array of three seperate sensors 

As well as the simple sensors MES have this IR camera 




VIDEOS F1 Season 2010 

22. VIDEOS 

Building a Formula 1 Car 

F1 Factory Tour Milton Keynes (Red Bull) 

Ferrari F10 - steering wheel - How it works 

Formula 1 Aerodynamics Explained by Martin Brundle 

Downforce Explained by Martin Brundle 

McLaren F-Duct How Does It Work 

Ferrari F10 New Diffuser - Valencia 

Ferrari Exhaust Blown Diffuser 

Flex Wing Red Bull RB6 

McLaren F-Duct Explained by Martin Brundle 

Mercedes airscoop sdoppiato (GP Spagna) 

Renault V10 F1 - Engine Bench Test 

Renault R30 Chassis Rig 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download 

Download

Aerodynamic & Mechanical Updates 2010 - F1-Forecast

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?