- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Team: Andrew Green (TD), Andy Stevenson (SD), Bob Halliwell (Production Director), Simon Philips (Aerodynamics Director), Akio Haga (CD), Ian Hall (CD), Tom McCullough (CE), Mark Gray (TM), Vijay Mallya (TP), Robert Fernley (DTP), Otmar Szafnauger (COO)
Drivers: Sergio Perez (11), Nico Hulkenberg (27), Pascal Wehrlein (34, Test)
now that's the kind of F1 engineering i like to see. i love it!Thunders wrote:Some Pictures from Today by AMuS:
You really see on the Front Wings where the Red Bull Aero guys went....
http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Pas ... 876064.jpg
http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Pas ... 876062.jpg
http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Pas ... 876063.jpg
The "holes" are not in the section described in red, they are in front of it. They are in front of the point 150mm behind the forward-most point of the structure.McMrocks wrote:Not sure if it is legal but at least the outer edges of the nostrils don't count to the minimum cross section. The 9000mm² and 20000mm² need to be one single cross section (not sure how they manage to reach the area required)An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell. This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it and be arranged symmetrically about the car centre line.
No part of this structure may lie more than 525mm above the reference plane and its forward-most point must not be less than 850mm forward of the front wheel centre line.
It must have :
a) A single external vertical cross-section, perpendicular to the car centre line, of more than 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. No part of this cross-section may lie less than 135mm above the reference plane and its overall width must not exceed 140mm.
b) A single external vertical cross-section, perpendicular to the car centre line, of more than 20000mm² at a point 150mm behind its forward-most point. The overall width of this cross-section must not exceed 330mm.
When measuring these sections, only parts between the highest point of the section and 100mm vertically below this point, may be considered.
Each external vertical cross-section, taken perpendicular to the car centre line between points 150mm behind the forward-most point of the structure and 150mm forward of the front wheel centre line, must be a single section with an area which exceeds a value given by a linear taper from 20000mm² to 60000mm² respectively.
Furthermore, all lines drawn normally and externally to a vertical cross-section taken 150mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and perpendicular to the car centre line, must not cross a vertical longitudinal plane lying on the car centre line.
Not sure how they manage to avoid breaking the red part. I guess the nostrils end 15cm behind the nose tip?
The only rational explanation I could come up with is that the nose with nostrils is just intermediate step/temporary testing workaround (as Scarbs calls it) before the real thing hits the track. Maybe we will see the new nose cone in Silverstone, maybe I'm missing something here. Let's see.3.7.8 wrote:Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the reference plane.
[...]
You got me! It's amateur hour over here, as I was visualizing "150mm = 15 inches" as opposed to 15 cm.techF1LES wrote:eyalynf1, I disagree with you on this and here is my measurement... I will go as far to say these nostrils just starts 150mm behind the forward-most point of the crash structure.
http://i.imgur.com/qGoz3L9.jpg
http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Pas ... 876064.jpg
So if I understand this right is that this is Legal but not an optimum solution. I am wondering why would Force India choose to follow a direction which is different to the tried and tested short-nose solution by Merc, RB, Mcl,Wil ... unless they found additional gains in their solution...ChrisF1 wrote:I hear it is legal, and another team considered launching with that design but the cost benefit of weight/aero improvement wasn't worthwhile...
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
Scarbs has now written this article in which he says it could potentially be legal:techF1LES wrote:Sky Sports is by no means a reliable source when it comes to explanation of any more complex technicalities and Scarbs' only comment on this issue I could find is this one...
https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1/status/613740165396340736
Personally, I can't find a way how to circumvent article 3.7.8 with this kind of design provided that both vanity panel and mounting pylons must comply with this rule.
The only rational explanation I could come up with is that the nose with nostrils is just intermediate step/temporary testing workaround (as Scarbs calls it) before the real thing hits the track. Maybe we will see the new nose cone in Silverstone, maybe I'm missing something here. Let's see.3.7.8 wrote:Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the reference plane.
[...]
)
Based only on that quote I would read that as it IS optimal but the cost of producing it offers too small a benefit. IE they believe it improves downforce or reduces drag but they believe that due to the amount of time it takes to design and test via CFD/wind tunnel and the money involved can be more efficiently spent on something else on the car.weirdlife wrote:So if I understand this right is that this is Legal but not an optimum solution. I am wondering why would Force India choose to follow a direction which is different to the tried and tested short-nose solution by Merc, RB, Mcl,Wil ... unless they found additional gains in their solution...ChrisF1 wrote:I hear it is legal, and another team considered launching with that design but the cost benefit of weight/aero improvement wasn't worthwhile...
