F1technical.net

CMSMJ1 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 16:34

mzso wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 15:33

Why? F2 is not underside-downforce oriented, as far as I know. (Though with time it will surely start mimicing F1.)

F2 is a GE formula for sure. No idea how advanced, but just to look at them - they run a very flat rake and do have an enviable capacity to follow one another.

Well, the flat bottom doesn't scream GE to me. The second part is not really indicative of GE though, but less turbulence and downforce in general.

mzso wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 17:08

mclaren111 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 16:47

What do you mean by sponsor stickers ?

It's a part of everthing. If they'd announced some change relating to stickers, you'd be screaming "indycar".

Still not following you... Indycar on TV sounds a lot better than F1...

Indy Car is a much better viewing / racing product than F1, they’re just a little slower, heavier, and less downforce.

I hate that it’s being used as a negative because it’s a fun series to follow.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 10:38

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022, 22:23

Curious if the design principal of these cars leads to more instances of debris being thrown at a trailing driver.

wouldn't think so. There was more little bits with the bargeboards and pre-2019 front wings. The "floor edge wings" may not last the full race though.

Yeah I can see a curb taking out a few of them at once.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 14:52

FW17 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 13:55

FE cars are also GE cars

https://storage.googleapis.com/the-race ... 24x683.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/01 ... 750448.jpg

Much closer to F1 2022 than Indycar which really does not have a inlet section

I’d say formula Es closer to indycar and f2 than the f1 tunnels. It’s flat before the diffuser.

??

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 17:39

Indy Car is a much better viewing / racing product than F1, they’re just a little slower, heavier, and less downforce.

I hate that it’s being used as a negative because it’s a fun series to follow.

I personally can't follow indycar, because they have made the rules so simple purely for entertainment purposes. I watch F1 because I like the intricacies of cutting edge design and engineering, not because i want to see random individual who happens to be in the right place at the right time winning races (cough cough 2012 Maldonado).

Hoffman900 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 17:39

Indy Car is a much better viewing / racing product than F1, they’re just a little slower, heavier, and less downforce.

I hate that it’s being used as a negative because it’s a fun series to follow.

If you can follow it. It's f-ing exclusive now that it cannot be watched anywhere... And I'm not about torture myself with illegal internet streams, especially from America with 8 minutes of advertisement for every five minutes of racing. I did it once, it was enough. Same damn Silverado commercial 10 times in a single hour.

Do we think it would be possible to design a nose and front wing like the Tyrrell 019? But rather than simply raise the nose tip (which isn't possible), they would move the nose tip up and back within it's legality zone. Then to join the wing to the nose, it would sweep back towards the tip. I'm thinking the advantage of this would be to allow more air under the nose to feed the floor tunnels.

No. The wing volume is specifically shaped.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 22:31

No. The wing volume is specifically shaped.

Are you sure? Looking at the image below, it looks like you could do it, perhaps not to an extreme.



Looking at this image, I was thinking essentially the nose tip would be roughly where the top element of the wing joins the nose, and the other elements of the wing would sweep back to this point, staying within the front wing legality box. Or is there a rule that defines the shape of each front wing element to prevent this?



EDIT: Viewed from above it would look something like this:

The surface RS-FW-PROFILES prevents such an arrangement.

jacobianminkowski wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 23:25

The surface RS-FW-PROFILES prevents such an arrangement.

Ah interesting, I'm guessing it's this triangle that prevents this:

Like the floor there is a minimum planform area to which the wing must conform, the triangular(ish) shape of RS-FW-PROFILES (red below) must be hidden by the front wing.

Described in this article: https://www.f1technical.net/news/23344

I had been wondering something similar, except the fore-most element would be ‘above’ the nose tip. However the remainder of the rule wording prohibits this and leads to a Williams FW14-esque nose/wing structure.

west52keep64 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022, 22:54

EDIT: Viewed from above it would look something like this:
https://i.imgur.com/EAOrcv2.png

3.9.1k would make that particular shape difficult I think - minimum radius of 200mm on the trailing edges when projected in planview.

Can you incorporate a cape in the front wing?