F1technical.net

The mercedes "sabretooth" nose:

Slight diversion here, but:

Does anyone else think it a little odd that the front crash structure now fits under the rear crash structure.

...so a rear end shunt is likely to lift the rear wheels of the shunt-ee off the ground, and if the shunt-ers front wheels connect with those rears, the cars are likely to lock together...

I know it's just one sort of shunt, but it's one of those unintended consequences that might come up.
Likewise, could t-boning now risk battery pack ruptures (as opposed to radiator and driver [!] ruptures with the old high noses) if the nose sneaks un under the rad's?

avatar wrote:Slight diversion here, but:

Does anyone else think it a little odd that the front crash structure now fits under the rear crash structure.

...so a rear end shunt is likely to lift the rear wheels of the shunt-ee off the ground, and if the shunt-ers front wheels connect with those rears, the cars are likely to lock together...

I know it's just one sort of shunt, but it's one of those unintended consequences that might come up.
Likewise, could t-boning now risk battery pack ruptures (as opposed to radiator and driver [!] ruptures with the old high noses) if the nose sneaks un under the rad's?

As far as I know, the batteries have to be in the safety cell this year.

This Autosport picture seems to show flo-vis on the nosecone of the Ferrari.

http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/13318729

It seems to show that the air is going around the nosecone and under the nose.

avatar wrote:Slight diversion here, but:

Does anyone else think it a little odd that the front crash structure now fits under the rear crash structure.

...so a rear end shunt is likely to lift the rear wheels of the shunt-ee off the ground, and if the shunt-ers front wheels connect with those rears, the cars are likely to lock together...

I know it's just one sort of shunt, but it's one of those unintended consequences that might come up.
Likewise, could t-boning now risk battery pack ruptures (as opposed to radiator and driver [!] ruptures with the old high noses) if the nose sneaks un under the rad's?

Neither of those accidents seems likely to happen in reality.

skgoa wrote:

avatar wrote:Slight diversion here, but:

Does anyone else think it a little odd that the front crash structure now fits under the rear crash structure.

...so a rear end shunt is likely to lift the rear wheels of the shunt-ee off the ground, and if the shunt-ers front wheels connect with those rears, the cars are likely to lock together...

I know it's just one sort of shunt, but it's one of those unintended consequences that might come up.
Likewise, could t-boning now risk battery pack ruptures (as opposed to radiator and driver [!] ruptures with the old high noses) if the nose sneaks un under the rad's?

Neither of those accidents seems likely to happen in reality.

You could have said the same for the following before they actually happened, but they did happen, and then became part of the argument for low nose *after* they'd happened ( if they were thought to be realistically likely before they happened, the rules would have been changed before):

- Mark Webber being launched over the back of Kovalainen,
- Grosjean skating over Alonso's cockpit,
- Vettle's high nose puncturing Button's sidepod and radiator etc.

P.s. I hadn't seen this article when I posted, but it seems Adrian Newey & RedBull are expressing concern along similar lines, but rather than cars locking together, they're concerned the rear end of a shunt-ee might ride up all the way to the cockpit, leaving the driver exposed to the rear crash structure:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... noses.html

I did not know where to ask this but i thought about the front brake ducts, specifically the scoop versus the sort of integrated one.

When it rains you usually want to close them off a bit due to the fact you are going slower and hence have trouble getting heat in the tires, brakes.

But how do you tape of the integrated ones? Seems like you can´t do much customization with that type of brake ducts.

SectorOne wrote:I did not know where to ask this but i thought about the front brake ducts, specifically the scoop versus the sort of integrated one.

When it rains you usually want to close them off a bit due to the fact you are going slower and hence have trouble getting heat in the tires, brakes.

But how do you tape of the integrated ones? Seems like you can´t do much customization with that type of brake ducts.

I guess those will still have inlets/openings that are accessible when the tyre is off...?

There are many people on this forum refering to the "spirit of the rules".
Is there a spirit of a rule?
What is the spirit of a rule?

If the spirit of a rule is to be followed there must be an explicit definition of the how you´re obliged to interprete the rule.
I imagine that a technical rule are defined with measurment of some kind and not such thing as a "spirit of a rule". I´m sure that there is a clear intention with a rule from the FIA, but not actually how to interpret it.
It is quite different to each other and it´s actually vastly much more difficult to define a "spirit of a rule" than to define a set of measurments.
What people think is the "spirit of the rule", is what I belive their own interpretation of the intention FIA had.
I also belive that one of these things that defines Formula 1, are the freedom of interpretation of the technical rules and not a standardized rule set like in GP2.

So my conclusion is, there is no such thing as "the spirit of the rules".

Yea but i think it´s just one long slit rather then a scoop.

Closed/open

Blackout wrote:Closed/open
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526

Hah, that heatgun to warm the breakpads (?) is a nifty idea. Haven't seen that before.

So when closed the duct is in "by-pass" ? Or does it close off completely?

Surprising to here that the car has to be completely taken apart in case of Red Bull and Caterham (at least) to access the battery pack. I imagined that battery pack would have been accessed by just removing the floor plank of the car.

avatar wrote: You could have said the same for the following before they actually happened, but they did happen, and then became part of the argument for low nose *after* they'd happened ( if they were thought to be realistically likely before they happened, the rules would have been changed before):

- Mark Webber being launched over the back of Kovalainen,
- Grosjean skating over Alonso's cockpit,
- Vettle's high nose puncturing Button's sidepod and radiator etc.

P.s. I hadn't seen this article when I posted, but it seems Adrian Newey & RedBull are expressing concern along similar lines, but rather than cars locking together, they're concerned the rear end of a shunt-ee might ride up all the way to the cockpit, leaving the driver exposed to the rear crash structure:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... noses.html

And Newey didn't realise that right after new rules were planned or announced? That was the time for discussion and raising concerns. Even if they ignored him why didn't he shout from the rooftops (clear conscience)? He had a lot of time for that so I doubt his motivations. They should ban McLaren's back of the car too on safety grounds. Clearly in case of crash those additional bits can gouge someone's eye out, less bits - less chance of serious injury, simple .