It appears Ross Brawn wants the EBD to continue in current form and is against a ban. Smashing to pieces the hocus pocus fantasy being bandied on this thread.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91617
The throttle isn't closed. The rules for the ECU and throttle state that the throttle must be closed when the peddle is released and 100% open when the throttle is fully down (this is in part to eliminate start maps which give more control at lower throttle openings), but there is no requirement for the throttle plate to be linear to peddle movement. You can have a map, as an example, which would give 80% opening for anything from 5-95% peddle movement.xpensive wrote:What I don't get technically is how you can get a gas-flow though the engine with a closed throttle, or is it not closed?
Can anyone xplain how this works when you're "off-thottle" and why it would be so difficult for Cosworth to develop?
Please explain how McLaren's diffuser is bigger than everyone elses.JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Actually, McLaren would suffer.
And the reason for it is likely because they run the biggest diffuser in the paddock.
Brilliant Don, this is xactly why I doubt those two miserables were alone on this.donskar wrote: ...
And WTF do teams like the impotent HRT and the (sadly) irrelevant Williams have to do with directing design trends in F1?
Cosworth may be an engineering firm, but why are they focusing on the cost when the regs havent even been decided yet? I'll leave you be the judge of that.With new regulations, while being welcome from the point of view of innovation, what would never be welcome is creating a financial space race. That is not what we want at a time when we are emerging from the most difficult economic time for many, many teams"But what we want to do is to be in F1 long-term and to provide highly-competitive engines, but engines that are also affordable and sustainable for our customers – because without that there isn't a business.
My theory is that Williams, Virgin and HRT have asked the FIA for clarification before spending vast amounts of cash that they don't have on developing EBDs.donskar wrote:Hold on a second. My brain is slowly catching up.
Are we saying that Renault has perfected this technique, but it is too complicated for Ferrari and Mercedes to figure out? No, that can't be. And if Cosworth can't figure (or afford) out how to do it, how will they ever be competitive developing an all-new turbo engine?
And WTF do teams like the impotent HRT and the (sadly) irrelevant Williams have to do with directing design trends in F1?
Sure thing.Diesel wrote:Please explain how McLaren's diffuser is bigger than everyone elses.
An EBD ban, would hit Mclaren's concept hard. They went to town on the diffuser and any change there would have big repercussions for them. No wonder Whitmarsh is tentative.Their rear wing sports vanes along its lower edge. Sauber also have much smaller solution on their current car. Having bodywork in this area effectively extends the diffuser sidewalls by some 30cm, which helps maximise the expansion ratio of the diffuser for more downforce. Such is the shape of the flow out of the diffuser, the bodywork needs to be vaned to allow the flow to expand.
McLaren have formed four vanes into the allowable area. For the test, the rear-pointing exhausts were lined up with these vanes, thus the exhaust flow will be routed by these vanes, accelerating flow inside the diffuser for even more downforce.