While these fins may indeed help keep the flow more in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the car, they are so tiny I don't think this effect is of any importance.F1T wrote:Cockpit edges: to round or not to round? - Development blog
So nope, the STR10 still has the same classic intercooler layoutBlackSwan wrote:http://f1grandprix.motorionline.com/dow ... -00016.jpg
Another suggestion is that if a team is searching for torsional rigidity then it will try and make the chassis size as square as possible - a 'rounded' chassis will be less stiff.Per wrote:While these fins may indeed help keep the flow more in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the car, they are so tiny I don't think this effect is of any importance.F1T wrote:Cockpit edges: to round or not to round? - Development blog
My understanding is, however, that sharp edges like this are used to have a stable separation point. When the car is in yaw, you're probably going to get some flow separation at the cockpit edge. With a round edge you can't predict exactly where that point will be as it varies with airspeed and yaw rate and will also be sensitive to the wind. With a sharp edge like this you know exactly where the separation will be in all circumstances and that gives an aerodynamicist a better base to work from.
When you have a stronger engine, you can afford also more drag in order to increment downforce. However, I know that I shouldn't believe everything he said, but he was persuasivePer wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
The drag penalty isn't as strong in Monaco though. Very little in fact, relative to other circuits.bl4zar_ wrote:When you have a stronger engine, you can afford also more drag in order to increment downforce. However, I know that I shouldn't believe everything he said, but he was persuasivePer wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
Mercedes was not ahead of Redbull in Monaco because they had a powerful engine it was the package/integration. Mercedes had a powerful package and their PU was superior to Renault in terms of power, driveability, fuel efficiency and braking (MGU-K) which effects laptime and Mercedes engine cars have a quali mode I guess which gives them more power. Add all this up and it may give Mercedes a small advantage on Redbull.joetoml1n wrote:The drag penalty isn't as strong in Monaco though. Very little in fact, relative to other circuits.bl4zar_ wrote:When you have a stronger engine, you can afford also more drag in order to increment downforce. However, I know that I shouldn't believe everything he said, but he was persuasivePer wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
Engine especialy driveability is also very important in monaco.joetoml1n wrote:The drag penalty isn't as strong in Monaco though. Very little in fact, relative to other circuits.bl4zar_ wrote:When you have a stronger engine, you can afford also more drag in order to increment downforce. However, I know that I shouldn't believe everything he said, but he was persuasivePer wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?
And we should buy everything that you say?Per wrote:Don't buy everything a CFD engineer says (with all due respect). If Red Bull was superior in aero and chassis then where were they in Monaco and how did Merc end up lapping all but two cars there?