http://www.flickr.com/photos/78762838@N00/526482895

and

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/1456/Lotus-58-Cosworth.html

As I read the regs, wings are NOT required. And the regs don’t give a minimum size for them, only a maximum size and range of location. Dump the wings and radically cut the drag. Think uprated FFord. A DOHC layout (once scorned by F1 as the domain of the “obsolete” Offy and the Indy roadsters it powered) is NOT required — the reg says 90 degree V8 with 4 valves per cylinder. In theory, you could run a DOHV engine, or even a D(ouble)S(ide) V(alve). A rear engine is not even required; given that every team keeps trying to get weight forward, a front-mid engine could be an advantage. And it doesn’t have to be a big car. Take a look at a Watson or Epperly Indy roadster and tell me if it’s bigger than any F1 car of the last fifteen years. Maybe stick wings and diffuser on one. Even choice of driven wheels is open: You could go FWD if you wanted. Or put a front-mounted radiator into a rear engined car, cutting down frontal area and hence drag.

Point is, much as a the Williams flywheel (a flywheel!) KERS and the Brawn double-deck diffuser (biplane wing, anyone?) are new twists on old ideas, any of the “obsolete” or “radical” solutions I’ve mentioned could provide an advantage. As we’ve seen, spending time, effort and money continuing along the path of the current “state of the art” doesn’t guarantee success, or even a competitive car. And that’s happened in every era of F1. Since you may fail anyway, why not put those resources into daring greatly?

Do you think any of the teams currently on the grid, or soon to be there, have it in them to embrace such radical thinking, seizing advantage through the unexpected? It would be great to see. Or did that willingness to defy convention go out with Colin Chapman?

McClaren also used to run 2 development teams – I don’t know if they still do, but I think they do – where 1 runs the current year car and develops it and the other is already on next years – alternating as they go. Albeit not at full resource but certainly they are well versed to working like that.

McClaren have admitted they went the wrong way with the design of the car aero. Ferrari aren’t saying much as they haven’t really solved their problems with this years car.

Basically, next year’s rules have very little change. Fuel tank size increase required and no tyre warmers will be the main things – so a car good on tyres will be needed which in colder conditions will need improvement from the Brackley boys. The good thing for Brawn though, will be that the car has always run better with fuel in it this year than when its light – so the current car design will help them there to build on for next year.

The moveable front flaps for next year are the same as this year again and do not have the increased range of movement first shown in the earlier version of the regs.

Notably the only way to change the new regs is in accordance with the 2009 Concord agreement.
(The contents of which,no one knows)

I mention all the above as a part of deciding how far to develop this year’s car and it’s relevance to next seasons requirements. Quite a lot but it’s still a new body new floor.

One interesting fact gathered from last weekend was that the fuel often reaches 100C in the bladder behind the driver’s back. So next year, will the double amount of fuel lead to any back cooling problems? Did it the old days, the last era with no refuelling ?
(A coating of Starlite would fix that)

The Brawn model of a team really isn’t much different from the McLaren model. Yes, Mercedes is a partner in the team, but they don’t run the team and don’t have ultimate control over the team’s decisions. They just build the engines and beg Martin for a German driver. Ferrari don’t operate so differently, as for one they are mainstays and don’t have to justify their existence in F1 to the FIAT board (as the BMW and Honda teams did to their corporate boards) but also are basically allowed to run the team unimpeded by FIAT. The same is the situation at Red Bull.

I would argue that the McLaren model is the best way of going about running a team. They have an engine partner in Mercedes who owns a stake in the team and only spends its resources on engine development, which keeps costs down for the manufacturer. McLaren rake in major sponsorship money from large corporations to finance the rest of the team.

The result: A more even group of teams and better sporting outcomes for spectators.

Its kind of odd in a country that is so anti anything-remotely-resembling-socialism(*) that they take such an even handed approach. But the results speak for themselves. F1/FOM would do well in terms of improving the show by distrubting the money more evenly between the teams.

(*) Never mind the fact that much of what they call socialism has nothing to do with socialism, but thats another debate for a different website.