Sick.stefan_ wrote:
Sick.stefan_ wrote:
That could very well be the case. The big question is: Will low drag trump high Downforce ?GrizzleBoy wrote:I don't know.
I have a feeling it can be one of the slipperiest cars on the track, especially if they are able to refine the idea.
I doubt the reason for the lower nose being CoG. I think they would only do so for aerodynamic's reasons.turbof1 wrote:We of course don't exactly know how teams redistribute weight, but it is limited; you need to have this very strict rear to front ratio calculated in, combined with the minimum weight. Possibly, and this might a wild guess, this is the reason why they lowered the nose. They might have increased the mass of it and lowered it to correct the CoG.
They might also use heavier materials for the floor.
The picture of the Sauber there is terrible. You can't see how much floor it have on the sides of it.lillschumi wrote:I think it´s quite obvious where they have stuffed the things, longer and fater and a lot less floor if you ask me. I think it could be a miss even though i like that someone does something different to try to find a advantage. But as some others have pointed out it´s not magic they have just choosed another layout.
Like I said, a wild guess. You do agree though that it's rather strange that they have lowered the nose right? Like Huntresa said, possibly the diffuser has reached the maximum possible air volume, and so you apply the pre-2009 nose solution. In that case the competition has a big problem, but only if that is the case.Artur Craft wrote:I doubt the reason for the lower nose being CoG. I think they would only do so for aerodynamic's reasons.turbof1 wrote:We of course don't exactly know how teams redistribute weight, but it is limited; you need to have this very strict rear to front ratio calculated in, combined with the minimum weight. Possibly, and this might a wild guess, this is the reason why they lowered the nose. They might have increased the mass of it and lowered it to correct the CoG.
They might also use heavier materials for the floor.
The CoG issue is often brought up but, in reality, teams are all overlooking it(to some extent). They will try to lower their CoG only if it doesn't compromise downforce in anyway.
In this interview to Peter Windsor and Scarbs, Force India's Technical Director, Andrew Green, at some point, says about the better aerodynamics of the vanity pannel: "The numbers from the tunnel are very small, but it doesn't take a very big aerodynamic gain to offset a mass, center of gravity disadvantadge. The aero number wins by quite a margin...."
This interview make a very positive effect on any further related discussion that we might have in the forum, regardless of the car in question!
Aerodynamic gains easily offset higher CoG
The CoG thing I already pointed out in previous post. I doubt any team would exchange better aerodynamics for lower CoG as aero gains easily offset a higher CoGFerraripilot wrote:Rikhart wrote:I maintain that the sidepods total size/area isn´t that much less than the others, just they have gone for a sort of overcut, instead of most other´s undercut. You can see the sidepods are very fat towards the bottom. It´s just a different way of packaging imo.
+1 Precisely. There is in essence no undercut at the floor as most of the mass seems to be positioned in that area. Sauber are relying on the possibly lower CoG to outweight the aero benefit of the undercut in that area is my guess.
What Ferrari(Lotus and Red Bull are roughly like Sauber, in the way they bring their coke bottle into play, but not even close to being as tight in the upper part of sidepod or even undercut in Red Bull's case.) is doing there is very bad imo. Having a big coke bottle area, as Ferrari and Mercedes have, is terrible if you got it blocked by bodywork ahead of it. Sauber, Red Bull, Mclaren and Lotus coke bottles are better than Ferrari's imo.lillschumi wrote:It´s going to be interesting to see what will happen with the sidepod design. I think they will redesign them.
I personally think it´s better to have more undercut and a short sidepod to give as much clean floor as possible (alá Ferrari, Lotus, RedBull). Obviously Sauber thinks different and prioritize less overall wide sidepod to give less obrustructon of the airflow for the top side of the pod, still not sure why though.
This is exactly my view too. Pure aerodynamic reasons for it.Huntresa wrote:I assumed the low nose or lower nose is there cause they alrdy have enough air going to the diffuser and dont wanna over feed it.
To be honest, I actually think the post demonstrates a remarkable lack of interesting content. Mostly, it's just a very long version of "things with big surface areas facing the wind have lots of drag", which is rather obvious. What would be much more interesting to see is some actual models of where the air goes around the sauber's side pods. My personal bet is that it is not just the traditional "it flows round the bottom, we use it at the rear".Huntresa wrote:Upvote from me and i have to say +1 just to add another
You rly summed it up and showed what we all needed to see, especially those doubting this gr8 sidepod design.
Would be another +1 if you had made all the pics into 1 pic so you could open it and scroll down without having to open them all.
Thanks very much for it !Huntresa wrote:Upvote from me and i have to say +1 just to add another
You rly summed it up and showed what we all needed to see, especially those doubting this gr8 sidepod design.
Would be another +1 if you had made all the pics into 1 pic so you could open it and scroll down without having to open them all.