Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 15:18
Model: IDFX-2014-5a
Model IDFX-2014-6b
Page 90 of 99
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 15:20
Model: IDFX-2014-6a
Model IDFX-2014-6b
Model IDFX-2014-6b
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 16:11
i like that
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 16:59
Extremely impressed by the work, very nice!
Nose doesn´t look that bad either.
Edit: i would also advise you to put more then one picture in each post. You can still separate them in the post.
Nose doesn´t look that bad either.
Edit: i would also advise you to put more then one picture in each post. You can still separate them in the post.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 17:08
really nice work idfx, not trying to discredit you but alas in term of 2014 rules only the first one would be legal, the rule which forbids them is the single section ruling and if you splice through these designs off center then there is more than one section is created - even if it is made of one continuous part. Many designs throughout this thread including my own have fallen foul of this.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 17:24
The lotus design would suggest there are ways round that.neilbah wrote:really nice work idfx, not trying to discredit you but alas in term of 2014 rules only the first one would be legal, the rule which forbids them is the single section ruling and if you splice through these designs off center then there is more than one section is created - even if it is made of one continuous part. Many designs throughout this thread including my own have fallen foul of this.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 17:43
Very interesting thought borrowed from the Ferrari thread. If you get more energy to propel your car, you waste less energy as released heat; you get to have the most HP for the 27.7 grams/second of fuel and the best aero. It makes sense, but it means that the best engine will have a double advantage. So maybe 3-4 teams will simply run away with everything.PhillipM wrote:... It would actually be the most powerful engines that need the smallest radiators because they are the ones which are the most efficient...
The only other possible tradeoff is letting that heat out of the tail of the exhaust, which also leads to smaller radiators, but in 2014, less power.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 18:39
if this is the lotus nose and you slice through it like so there is only one section. I gather the lotus is ok because i dont think it has to pass cut transversely in a vertical fashion.Lazy wrote:The lotus design would suggest there are ways round that.neilbah wrote:really nice work idfx, not trying to discredit you but alas in term of 2014 rules only the first one would be legal, the rule which forbids them is the single section ruling and if you splice through these designs off center then there is more than one section is created - even if it is made of one continuous part. Many designs throughout this thread including my own have fallen foul of this.
im only repeating what i was told earlier in the thread when i drew a nose that thinned then got wider again.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 18:57
Del Boy wrote:F1 chassis homologation?
Do the technical regulations include anything about 2014 cars being homologated, I had a look on FIA website and can't find anything. Apart from once the crash test is passed that part is homologated. Therefore with the different front nose designs seen so far will the teams be able to change the design. For example if the RB10 turns up with something that's a second faster can the rest copy it? I know that changing the front end changes the aero all the way to the back and you may have to change the whole philosophy of the car. It seems teams regularly turn up with new front wings and I assume these are attached to the front crash structure which has passed the crash test.
I remember something about chassis homologation back in 2012 when the RRA was being enforced but what about 2014?
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 19:21
This is the post Scarbs.neilbah wrote:if this is the lotus nose and you slice through it like so there is only one section. I gather the lotus is ok because i dont think it has to pass cut transversely in a vertical fashion.Lazy wrote:The lotus design would suggest there are ways round that.neilbah wrote:really nice work idfx, not trying to discredit you but alas in term of 2014 rules only the first one would be legal, the rule which forbids them is the single section ruling and if you splice through these designs off center then there is more than one section is created - even if it is made of one continuous part. Many designs throughout this thread including my own have fallen foul of this.
http://i.imgur.com/wsfDmhy.jpg
im only repeating what i was told earlier in the thread when i drew a nose that thinned then got wider again.
http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2014/01/23/f1 ... ger-noses/
My design can be according to the rules. They have a single section. I make a projection. is inspired by mclaren
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 19:30
thank very much.Manoah2u wrote:i like that
Finished modeling the mirrors and rear wing, I post. You'll like
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 19:32
I was under the impression the virtual cut through the nose is up down and from tire to tire (forgot the name of that view)
Which is why Lotus has a longer nose tip so that it doesn´t cut through both noses.
Edit: like this,
Which is why Lotus has a longer nose tip so that it doesn´t cut through both noses.
Edit: like this,
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 19:58
but in scarbs own post...
with the exception of 1a and 4a, the noses you have posted fall foul according to this. thats all im trying to say, unless you want to show why they are excluded with some clever interpretation
with the exception of 1a and 4a, the noses you have posted fall foul according to this. thats all im trying to say, unless you want to show why they are excluded with some clever interpretation
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 26 Jan 2014, 22:01
Also every nose with just 1 pylon is illegal.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 27 Jan 2014, 00:48
From the look of the Ferrari and Sauber, you'd suggest the Ferrari engine needs less cooling than the merc - would be opposite of rumours if this theory is correct.hollus wrote:Very interesting thought borrowed from the Ferrari thread. If you get more energy to propel your car, you waste less energy as released heat; you get to have the most HP for the 27.7 grams/second of fuel and the best aero. It makes sense, but it means that the best engine will have a double advantage. So maybe 3-4 teams will simply run away with everything.PhillipM wrote:... It would actually be the most powerful engines that need the smallest radiators because they are the ones which are the most efficient...
The only other possible tradeoff is letting that heat out of the tail of the exhaust, which also leads to smaller radiators, but in 2014, less power.
Tough to tell with the Renault so far.