F1technical.net

Thunders wrote:afaik it was drawn by Scarbs so it think it would be legal.

If this is legal the bulbous bow ialso is.

WilliamsF1 wrote:

wuzak wrote: Surely that doesn't comply with the regs?

I guess you say it does not comply with regard to 3.7.8, but is this new? and does it apply to non structural elements such as turning vanes, vanity panels, snow plows etc.?

The snow plough would be the thing that has to conform to the rules, since the upper nose is too high.

I have a hard time accepting that as being a vanity panel. It looks more like full on bodywork.

FIA Institute Jet Fighter Canopy Test for Formula 1
If the FIA approve. It would be Amazing.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7kym3FJOg4[/youtube]

tried to mark out how scarbs drawing may be possible but im not sure about the legality overall, green section is trying to highlight how the vanity panel sits over the legal single closed section with mandated nose tip height-the actual plough part may have to be thicker to provide the min area. tried to abuse the step in chassis too

wuzak wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:

wuzak wrote: Surely that doesn't comply with the regs?

I guess you say it does not comply with regard to 3.7.8, but is this new? and does it apply to non structural elements such as turning vanes, vanity panels, snow plows etc.?

The snow plough would be the thing that has to conform to the rules, since the upper nose is too high.

I have a hard time accepting that as being a vanity panel. It looks more like full on bodywork.

Honestly speaking, i have not read the rules, but is there a section about vanity panels? vanity panels existed before 2013 when Red Bull used a rubber tip in 2012

turbof1 wrote:

shelly wrote:If you run a small delta extension in the central 150mm you could use the two vortices for downforce like strakes

*central 200mm. It got extended.

200mm is even better. If legal I think teams would do this to gain some RW downforce.

WilliamsF1 wrote: Honestly speaking, i have not read the rules, but is there a section about vanity panels? vanity panels existed before 2013 when Red Bull used a rubber tip in 2012

No, there doesn't seem to be, after a quick glance.

Which would mean that these "vanity panels" would be defined by the bodywork regulations and would, therefore, be outside the rules.

wuzak wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote: Honestly speaking, i have not read the rules, but is there a section about vanity panels? vanity panels existed before 2013 when Red Bull used a rubber tip in 2012

No, there doesn't seem to be, after a quick glance.

Which would mean that these "vanity panels" would be defined by the bodywork regulations and would, therefore, be outside the rules.

Bodywork is defined for the first 150 mm but nothing behind it

neilbah wrote:http://i.imgur.com/YikjFpL.jpg
tried to mark out how scarbs drawing may be possible but im not sure about the legality overall, green section is trying to highlight how the vanity panel sits over the legal single closed section with mandated nose tip height-the actual plough part may have to be thicker to provide the min area. tried to abuse the step in chassis too

i don't see the gain with that design, even if legal. Only the area below the plough is going under the car surely? then the section of the plough to vanity panel is just pushing air to the side?

I'm sure it breaks 3.7.8 and 3.7.9 (diagonal line)

But isnt Vanity panel area from 525 to 300mm, with the 300mm being that cause the nose has to slope off to 185.

id agree, i was just trying to understand why the snowplough design had even come up in the first place and im not sure it would be legal, isnt there some kind of diagonal line from bulkhead to nose tip that cant contain bodywork? stuggleing to find a template. In the same way weve seen letterboxes atop the nose cone could it be possible to have vertical ones somehow underlapping the nose cone sides with the bulkhead and then having an outlet underneath? probably impossible without breaking the 3.7.8/9, just daydreaming here.

Mitsuro Sano's snow plough version meets the diagonal line rule imo
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 12#p473212

Mitsuro Sano wrote:

The other nice renders are here http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 12#p473212

astracrazy wrote:

neilbah wrote:http://i.imgur.com/YikjFpL.jpg
tried to mark out how scarbs drawing may be possible but im not sure about the legality overall, green section is trying to highlight how the vanity panel sits over the legal single closed section with mandated nose tip height-the actual plough part may have to be thicker to provide the min area. tried to abuse the step in chassis too

i don't see the gain with that design, even if legal. Only the area below the plough is going under the car surely? then the section of the plough to vanity panel is just pushing air to the side?

I'm sure it breaks 3.7.8 and 3.7.9 (diagonal line)

What was the original reason to use a snow plough rather than leave the area under the nose unobstructed? (I'm asking genuinely, not being sarcastic).

f1316 wrote:

astracrazy wrote:

neilbah wrote:http://i.imgur.com/YikjFpL.jpg
tried to mark out how scarbs drawing may be possible but im not sure about the legality overall, green section is trying to highlight how the vanity panel sits over the legal single closed section with mandated nose tip height-the actual plough part may have to be thicker to provide the min area. tried to abuse the step in chassis too

i don't see the gain with that design, even if legal. Only the area below the plough is going under the car surely? then the section of the plough to vanity panel is just pushing air to the side?

I'm sure it breaks 3.7.8 and 3.7.9 (diagonal line)

What was the original reason to use a snow plough rather than leave the area under the nose unobstructed? (I'm asking genuinely, not being sarcastic).

I presume to create a low pressure area behind it.