Moving to inboard instead of sidepod mirrors.

[deus1066]

To be honest this argueing is a little irrelevant as moving the mirror back inboard will have a tiny effect on the car in my opinion. If this was before 2009 though, it would have made a big difference as all the little aero parts on the sidepods would have been optimised on being downstream of the mirrors.

Just my opinion anyway.

Also with regard to the bigger than normal holes for starters in the diffusers, my understanding was that they were leagal, hence passed scrutineering and were allowed to race for bahrain but were then modified based on unanimous agreement between the 4 teams and the FIA that they may not be in the interest of the rules. And to be honest, looking at the current Mclaren diffuser, they bearly changed it at all!

[010010011010]

I think what Astro1 is trying to say is that we know they should be moved, but not in the middle of the season. They knew they affected vision from last year, and the year before.

Its not the ban were arguing about, its the timing

[DaveKillens]

The timing is perfect. A safety issue was made relevant at Melbourne, and the FIA acted swiftly to correct this safety issue. Due to the influx of new teams and more uncompetitive cars on track, traffic has now become an issue. It wasn't last year, or the year before. But conditions changed, and we all saw that in Melbourne when a lot of cars were tripping over each other in Q1.

What kind of timing do you want? Do you wait for someone to be killed then announce a change?

I can understand the need for performance-related changes to be implimented with enough warning time, and possibly between seasons. But this is not a performance issue, it's a safety issue, that sadly, can affect some car's performance.

[woohoo]

The timing of this change makes me think that FIA simply watched the BBC coverage.

If is it such a a big problem, why didn't they ban the mirrors before the start of the season ?

[Edis]

The timing of this change makes me think that FIA simply watched the BBC coverage.

If is it such a a big problem, why didn't they ban the mirrors before the start of the season ?

Why didn't they ban the 'large' starter hole before the season? Afterall, they were used last season.

[Astro1]

Hey, wasn't there talk about how Ferrari were effectively using their mirror as a disguised extension of their vanes at the launch?

Would moving the mirrors make those illegal or at least illegal to be that large? Couldn't that have an effect on performance?

Something about them not being able to be 600mm above reference plane which the mirror and support go above?

I think I remember it was mentioned in the early autosprint drawings?

Edit - My bad, it was the F60


viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6267&start=45

[horse]

Yeah, I think you are looking at taking two aerodynamic hits here. Firstly, bringing the mirrors inboard will cause more disturbance of the airflow travelling into the rear wing zone and secondly, I think Astro1 is right, in that the performance of the vains will be reduced as they will effectively reduce in size.

I doubt that the vain reduction will be a massive deficit, but I should imagine the teams will have to be careful controlling the flow which passes over the mirrors as it travels towards the rear in order for them not to cause interference with the wing.

In saying that, it seemed to me, when looking at the cars in the rain, that the interaction of the vain and the sidepod, created some sort of shielding for the rear wheel (I find the outboard nature of the "inboard" rear wheel fascinating) so teams will also need to be careful to ensure that new side vain and sidepod can still achieve this effect.