I'm not an expert on aero but wonder whether the traditional engine cover is still a better one. All of the air around the driver's 'section' of the car would be quite turbulent - far moreso than the air where the intake is normally placed. Since this air-flow is more 'clean' the current layout would allow for a smaller air box opening than if you places them either side of the driver - and therefore less drag. Is this correct?Ciro Pabón wrote:That's one of the best ideas I've seen, Manchild.
I thought of something similar, nothing to do with airbox, just simple slits.manchild wrote:Anyway, I wasn't inspired to relocate airbox intake but to deal with new head protectors and turn them into some gain instead of pure loss.
I apologize for continuing OT discussion.manchild wrote:Because they had turbo charger in each sidepod. http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/11B-001.jpgBelatti wrote:Out of topic: can someone explain me why all turbo-era cars where like this:
Other way around. The rule actually calls for a seal to be impossible. That is why the cars have a cutout in the engine cover to prevent a total seal.Tom wrote:Is it definetly within the regs though? I have a feeling there's a rule that says you must be able to choke the air intake by holding an A4 clipboard over the opening...
They could put longitudinally a thin vertical "seal" of that minimum area defined by FIA. No need for "shape" of airbox and even better for sponsors as it wouldn't be curvy. Just curious, has anyone got the exact figure for that minimum area?mini696 wrote:And it is not within the regs if the engincover looks as shown. There is a minimum area required for the sponsors "billboard". They might be able to place the intake as shown, but would still require the airbox shape to remain.
I knew that man.manchild wrote:Because they had turbo charger in each sidepod. http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/11B-001.jpgBelatti wrote:Out of topic: can someone explain me why all turbo-era cars where like this: