F2001?obradorista wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeBk5WlCEAAJiMd.jpg:large
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
F2001?obradorista wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeBk5WlCEAAJiMd.jpg:large
I don't know why but this first image would be fairly advantageous in order to feed air under the lower arms of the front suspension then flowing onward to the Sidepods / floor. Could technically be called a "Front wing Bulbous flow conditioner".
Are you sure about the rear wing? I thought RW flaps were going to be thinner, somewhat like those used at Spa/Monza?Blackout wrote:Why notcould be a nice compromise : P
http://i57.servimg.com/u/f57/14/79/55/26/f1410.jpg
Why did you say this ?And 100% for sure no BGP01 nose. That would simply be undrivable. Or you would have to run it w/o Front Wing.
The rear downforce takes a biggest hit this year with the ban of beam wing and exhaust blowing. Wide low nose is good for front DF, but may starve diffuser, overall moving aero balance to the front.Ozan wrote:Why did you say this ?And 100% for sure no BGP01 nose. That would simply be undrivable. Or you would have to run it w/o Front Wing.
The mistake everyone is making is to think that the FIA has the same brilliant engineers working for them as the teams. This regulation was made to make the cars safer, which it should do. That the teams would do everything they could to find an advantage is obvious, but how long did it take the forum here to find the loopholes? And then we expect a handfull of "experts" who are no longer working for a team (wonder whyhenra wrote:Me neither.
The naivety of FIA is really amazing. They should have learned by now that the designers will look for any loopholes and don't give a sh*t for Looks when Performance can be gained otherwise.
) to see what was coming? Nope, not going to happen, even if it were in their best interest.Now there's a beauty!Blackout wrote:Why not
Stunning!Blackout wrote:Why not
http://i57.servimg.com/u/f57/14/79/55/26/f1410.jpg
ehehehHail22 wrote:I don't know why but this first image would be fairly advantageous in order to feed air under the lower arms of the front suspension then flowing onward to the Sidepods / floor. Could technically be called a "Front wing Bulbous flow conditioner".
What are your thoughts? (community question)
i really like this design. if it's compliant to the rules, i think it does, but i'm not the right person to answer that surely,Hail22 wrote:I don't know why but this first image would be fairly advantageous in order to feed air under the lower arms of the front suspension then flowing onward to the Sidepods / floor. Could technically be called a "Front wing Bulbous flow conditioner".
What are your thoughts? (community question)
Must be the Caterham?Kiril Varbanov wrote:https://twitter.com/willbuxton/status/4 ... 7695998976
Weight is not at all the same as downforce. Downforce is forcing the tires into the ground just like weight is. But downforce is without mass. Weight carries momentum which forces the cars out of the corner. So you cant say that just because they carry more weight at the back that compensates for lack of downforce. That's just rubbish.GrandAxe wrote:Every one seems to think rear downforce would be highly influential to nose design, but that might not be the case at all.
There are much heavier components all concentrated toward the rear of the car from this season. That's loads of free downforce (for want of a better term), just that its somewhat constant for every speed and rate of acceleration. Too much rear downforce might even be something of a problem for the teams as from this season.
In my opinion, the nose/front wing designs would be much more strongly influenced by the behaviour of front and rear suspension, need to maintain front end grip into corners and under braking; generally to even out front to rear weight/downforce distribution.
No one would want a planted rear end attached to ice skates; trying to point forwards, but loving circles better; trying to see London, but headed for Paris.
Actually it's even worse.Holm86 wrote: Weight is not at all the same as downforce. Downforce is forcing the tires into the ground just like weight is. But downforce is without mass. Weight carries momentum which forces the cars out of the corner. So you cant say that just because they carry more weight at the back that compensates for lack of downforce. That's just rubbish.