Toyota TF110

[Formula None]

Thanks ESP.



Interesting how they've hung the beam wing with swan's necks.

[GTO]

Wow, in the red paint the car looks strikingly similar to the F10.

[klthomas]

When did teams stop using compound angle radiators?

[ESPImperium]

When did teams stop using compound angle radiators?

Since about 2005/2006. Started by Renault and Sauber, refined by Williams a little, now more or less widley used.

Some teams are now using concave angled radiators as well, most notibly Renault as this way they can have the same cooling for a wider fuel tank, thus a shorter wheelbase.

[marcush.]

ESP ..thanks for the cool pictures!

I still don´t get the idea behind those extremely angled rads ...the airflow hits the radiator at a very sharp angle..and the radiator duct is anything from almost zero to 800mm in length so that will create unbelievable crossflows over the radiator core ,wouldn´t it?

[ESPImperium]

ESP ..thanks for the cool pictures!

I still don´t get the idea behind those extremely angled rads ...the airflow hits the radiator at a very sharp angle..and the radiator duct is anything from almost zero to 800mm in length so that will create unbelievable crossflows over the radiator core ,wouldn´t it?

Have a look at this thread, it may help you where i cant as im not really a packaging guy, i get the concept and grasp what is said, but cannot put it better than what some have done with pictures and data to back up the theory.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9213&hilit=Radiators

[marcush.]

ever the nice poster ,ESp.. I´m well aware of that thread but this question was not answered yet.

[ringo]

Looking at it, this car would not have been a race winner.
The front is very good, but behind the fuel tank is a bit conservative; too wide. Compare to Mclaren and redbull.

This is just from an aero pov, how well the suspension works is a mystery.

[marcush.]

Looking at it, this car would not have been a race winner.
The front is very god, but behind the fuel tank is a bit conservative; too wide. Compare to Mclaren and redbull.

This is just from an aero pov, how well the suspension works is a mystery.

back half of the car was essentialy TF109 end of season ..and dampers are the class of the field..toyota had done a lot of work in this area after struggling for so long.

[Giblet]

Looking at it, this car would not have been a race winner.
The front is very good, but behind the fuel tank is a bit conservative; too wide. Compare to Mclaren and redbull.

This is just from an aero pov, how well the suspension works is a mystery.

You simply can't tell from looks how it's aero will perform, sorry.

[richard_leeds]

You simply can't tell from looks how it's aero will perform, sorry.

This is a nice warm up for the car launches later this month.

[Tim.Wright]

You simply can't tell from looks how it's aero will perform, sorry.

This is a nice warm up for the car launches later this month.

So true.

[ringo]

Looking at it, this car would not have been a race winner.
The front is very good, but behind the fuel tank is a bit conservative; too wide. Compare to Mclaren and redbull.

This is just from an aero pov, how well the suspension works is a mystery.

You simply can't tell from looks how it's aero will perform, sorry.

I remember having this discussion earlier in the thread, and yes you can tell how aero performs by "looks".
Aero is completely geometrical and nothing to do with anything else like materials or even mechanics, since we are dealing with non movable aero.
A car's body is defined by 3 dimensional surfaces, the human eye is perfectly capable of processing such inputs.
With a perfect memomry someone can look on a car, draw it, and run it in a wind tunnel. With experience one can judge aero performance.

For example, you have enough life experience to discern the aero differences between a golf ball and a brick. In an extreme case someone out there can discern the difference between 2 F1 cars. It's perfectly possible and within human capability.
You can't use your own limitations and experiences to put an artificial limit on what is humanely possible. You are equipped with enough tools to detect all the inputs that are relevant to aero; aside from thermal vission.

[timbo]

With a perfect memomry someone can look on a car, draw it, and run it in a wind tunnel. With experience one can judge aero performance.

OK so, how come that teams having wind tunnels, CFD and stuff so often miss the boat and produce an update that doesn't work as expected?
Yes. You can judge the aero.
Somewhat.
But it is F1. 0.5s deficit over a 80s lap (less than 0.5%) would render you out of contention for victory.
Don't tell me you can measure that by the looks

Sorry for beating an old horse...

[Tim.Wright]

I remember having this discussion earlier in the thread, and yes you can tell how aero performs by "looks".
Aero is completely geometrical and nothing to do with anything else like materials or even mechanics, since we are dealing with non movable aero.
A car's body is defined by 3 dimensional surfaces, the human eye is perfectly capable of processing such inputs.
With a perfect memomry someone can look on a car, draw it, and run it in a wind tunnel. With experience one can judge aero performance.

For example, you have enough life experience to discern the aero differences between a golf ball and a brick. In an extreme case someone out there can discern the difference between 2 F1 cars. It's perfectly possible and within human capability.
You can't use your own limitations and experiences to put an artificial limit on what is humanely possible. You are equipped with enough tools to detect all the inputs that are relevant to aero; aside from thermal vission.

Yes I was party to the discussion and I still maintain my stance;
Can you theoretically characterise a car's aero based on its appearance? YES
Can anyone on this forum do this with any kind of accuracy? NO

I will still call BS on 99% of the aerodynamic claims cooked up by this forum in the next month when the new vehicles are released.

Tim