Crazy 2012 F1 idea (not sure it's legal, please check!)

[Giando]

A rough evolution of the MP4/26 concept...

- 3 wing-shaped profiles connecting the chassis sides to the actual pontoons: the first two contain the side crash-structures
and the third one, quite big, is contain the whole exhauts system

- ending-part of the exhaust blows from the lower-surface of the bigger wing with a 10° pitch

- whole sidepods are raised from the floor, a-la-F92A/F310/ToroRosso 2012

- vertical 'v' shaped side-pods air-ducts






Maybe it's totally illegal, anyway what do you think?

[allstaruk08]

looks awesome! is the exhaust the little rectangle? if it is its too low for 2012

[Giando]

looks awesome! is the exhaust the little rectangle? if it is its too low for 2012

Yep, probably... I think that maybe the whole exhauts-wing bodywork could be repositioned a little bit higher
to meet the minimum height required...

[Giando]

Even better... move just the exhaust on the upper side!

[Belatti]

I have already done something similar to this in a Formula Renault (the only free aero rules where inside sidepods...) with quite good results.

[Giando]

I have already done something similar to this in a Formula Renault (the only free aero rules where inside sidepods...) with quite good results.

Hi!

What you mean 'good results'? Did you tested this kind of shape in some CFD software?

[marcush.]

manchild and a bit later(in fact a full year later) myself proposed this already ..

One problem is you are not allowed to fully enclose the crash structures if I´m correct-so a wing profile surrounding those is not legal as I understand -but then a little slot between sharkgills was ok to make them one opening...so who knows.

[Giando]

manchild and a bit later(in fact a full year later) myself proposed this already ..

One problem is you are not allowed to fully enclose the crash structures if I´m correct-so a wing profile surrounding those is not legal as I understand -but then a little slot between sharkgills was ok to make them one opening...so who knows.

Ah!!! mate i guarantee i didn't see your proposal... funny to know we can develop similar ideas...

didn't know you can'tenlcose the crash structs in to wing profiles...

it's quite frustrating that designers are nomore free to use different shapes in certain areas cars would look much more stunning...


regards


Ps... what does 'manchild' mean?

[bhallg2k]

Not what; who. Manchild is our resident idealist. Some might even claim he invented Ferrari's vented nose in 2008. Also the biggest fan of Michael Schumacher you'll ever meet.

(And he's the creator of my snazzy avatar.)

[Belatti]

I have already done something similar to this in a Formula Renault (the only free aero rules where inside sidepods...) with quite good results.

Hi!

What you mean 'good results'? Did you tested this kind of shape in some CFD software?

No, coast down stright line testing.

[Giando]

Not what; who. Manchild is our resident idealist. Some might even claim he invented Ferrari's vented nose in 2008. Also the biggest fan of Michael Schumacher you'll ever meet.

(And he's the creator of my snazzy avatar.)

Ah ah... thanks for the explanation... i didn't understand it was a person, actually!

[Giando]

manchild and a bit later(in fact a full year later) myself proposed this already ..

One problem is you are not allowed to fully enclose the crash structures if I´m correct-so a wing profile surrounding those is not legal as I understand -but then a little slot between sharkgills was ok to make them one opening...so who knows.

Interesting, and funnily, some spoilers about the new Ferrari speak exactly about wing profile surrounding the side-crash structs...

They have to respect the same ratio rule applied for the suspension arms!

[yace]

yes i think it's legal, but you need more room for the radiators

[MIKEY_!]

Multi layered radiators might do the trick. But then they have their own problems.

[gold333]

Are the thin sidepods to aid Cd because the whole car is narrower? If so wouldn't that benefit be circumvented because the front tire width is what predominantly determines the Cd.

Or did I completely misunderstand you?