Lotus E22 Renault

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Post Reply
User avatar
mikeerfol
68
Joined: 20 Apr 2013, 22:19
Location: Greece

Re: Lotus E22 Pre-launch Speculation

Post

Trocola wrote:The first non-pen*s car. Thanks god.

Looks great
Yeah, the first co*k car :P

Btw

@ScarbsF1: Not sure how Lotus make the twin tusk arrangement meet the reg "a single external cross section of more than 9000mm² "

User avatar
Gridlock
30
Joined: 27 Jan 2012, 04:14

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

They're not the same length, right? It's not just some intern with little concept of perspective?
#58

scarlet
1
Joined: 07 Apr 2011, 14:08

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

Yep, right tusk looks longer to me.

User avatar
outer_bongolia
5
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 19:17

Re: Lotus E22 Pre-launch Speculation

Post

I would love to see this lotus lock a McLaren nose to nose. That'd be a nice view.
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
Carl Sagan

Blanchimont
214
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 23:47

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

CBeck113 wrote:Interesting that they made the nose asymetrical, but I can't believe that the FIA let them get away with it (i.e. aerodynamic function of the vanity panel, which must be the shorter side of the nose) ... there will be many changes before the second test, since this solution will be much better than the Williams & McLaren solutions.
It's also possible that both fingers belong to the crash structure. But why do you think that the Lotus solution is better than the others? The rules demand that you the cross section 50mm behind the tip has to have a minimum cross section of 9000mm², that's the cross section of the right finger. The second finger increases the cross section from 50mm behind the tip onwards and also doubles the turbolences and weight.
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)

bidong
0
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 11:37

Re: Lotus E22 Pre-launch Speculation

Post

outer_bongolia wrote:I would love to see this lotus lock a McLaren nose to nose. That'd be a nice view.
how to make a 2015 f1 car. make babies

atlantis
21
Joined: 24 Jan 2014, 14:33

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

Is that nose legal?

scarlet
1
Joined: 07 Apr 2011, 14:08

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

Blanchimont wrote:
CBeck113 wrote:Interesting that they made the nose asymetrical, but I can't believe that the FIA let them get away with it (i.e. aerodynamic function of the vanity panel, which must be the shorter side of the nose) ... there will be many changes before the second test, since this solution will be much better than the Williams & McLaren solutions.
It's also possible that both fingers belong to the crash structure. But why do you think that the Lotus solution is better than the others? The rules demand that you the cross section 50mm behind the tip has to have a minimum cross section of 9000mm², that's the cross section of the right finger. The second finger increases the cross section from 50mm behind the tip onwards and also doubles the turbolences and weight.
And I don't think it's guaranteed that you'll get more airflow through under the car with this design anyway.

beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

Blanchimont wrote:
CBeck113 wrote:Interesting that they made the nose asymetrical, but I can't believe that the FIA let them get away with it (i.e. aerodynamic function of the vanity panel, which must be the shorter side of the nose) ... there will be many changes before the second test, since this solution will be much better than the Williams & McLaren solutions.
It's also possible that both fingers belong to the crash structure. But why do you think that the Lotus solution is better than the others? The rules demand that you the cross section 50mm behind the tip has to have a minimum cross section of 9000mm², that's the cross section of the right finger. The second finger increases the cross section from 50mm behind the tip onwards and also doubles the turbolences and weight.
Nope, it appears lotus are exploiting a loop hole here. There's nothing in the crash structure regulation that says that it must have a *single* cross section. Only that it's total cross sectional area must be 9000mm².

astracrazy
31
Joined: 04 Mar 2009, 16:04

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

wtf is that. what is this sport coming to

Blanchimont
214
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 23:47

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

beelsebob wrote:There's nothing in the crash structure regulation that says that it must have a *single* cross section. Only that it's total cross sectional area must be 9000mm².
15.4.3:
... It must have a single external cross section, in horizontal projection, of more than 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. ...
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)

User avatar
Blackout
1562
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 04:12

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

Me too thinks the Lotus sidepod inlets seem to be smaller than the Merc powered cars (williams and Mclaren atleast)
But wait an see

beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

Blanchimont wrote:
beelsebob wrote:There's nothing in the crash structure regulation that says that it must have a *single* cross section. Only that it's total cross sectional area must be 9000mm².
15.4.3:
... It must have a single external cross section, in horizontal projection, of more than 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. ...
Nope.

15.4.3:
It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm2 at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... _20.07.pdf

atlantis
21
Joined: 24 Jan 2014, 14:33

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

Is it me or the right part of the nose seems shorter than the left?

Blanchimont
214
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 23:47

Re: Lotus E22 Renault

Post

beelsebob wrote:
Blanchimont wrote:
beelsebob wrote:There's nothing in the crash structure regulation that says that it must have a *single* cross section. Only that it's total cross sectional area must be 9000mm².
15.4.3:
... It must have a single external cross section, in horizontal projection, of more than 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. ...
Nope.

15.4.3:
It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm2 at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... _20.07.pdf
Better use this one: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... -12-09.pdf
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)

Post Reply