F1technical.net

theWPTformula wrote:

wuzak wrote:

theWPTformula wrote:
If that's just a cylinder then, as long as the Monkey Seat is 15mm above the exhaust pipe (15mm gap to crash structure below = 30mm total), this design is legal. It's not like a cone shape that we had with the exhausts this year.

Unless I'm being stupid here...

Your drawing certainly looks closer than 15mm.

And you would have to wonder if there are any benefits - the exhaust can be pointed up at 5°, but then the bodywork has to conform to that too - so there is no blowing of that surface.

wuzak wrote:
Your drawing certainly looks closer than 15mm.

And you would have to wonder if there are any benefits - the exhaust can be pointed up at 5°, but then the bodywork has to conform to that too - so there is no blowing of that surface.

I agree with you, there probably isn't that much of a benefit but it is worth having the winglet there anyway, even if the exhaust has no influence on it.

If the exhaust has a negative effect of the winglet then take it off, I guess.

theWPTformula wrote:

wuzak wrote:
Your drawing certainly looks closer than 15mm.

And you would have to wonder if there are any benefits - the exhaust can be pointed up at 5°, but then the bodywork has to conform to that too - so there is no blowing of that surface.

I agree with you, there probably isn't that much of a benefit but it is worth having the winglet there anyway, even if the exhaust has no influence on it.

If the exhaust has a negative effect of the winglet then take it off, I guess.

I suppose the winglet must be of some benefit as it is, because they all have them.

But, as you say, the exhaust pipe could compromise that.

Basically what I am getting at is that there will be no exhaust blowing effects. And certainly not to the degree we have seen in the past 3 or 4 seasons.

The other issue is that exhaust blowing will be wasting energy that could otherwise be used, or stored for later use.

wuzak wrote:Basically what I am getting at is that there will be no exhaust blowing effects. And certainly not to the degree we have seen in the past 3 or 4 seasons.

I would disagree with that. I think that with what they have learned about exhaust deflection over the past two seasons and the monkey seat regulations as they stand, that not having the "blown" seat would be a serious disadvantage. True, perhaps not to EBD levels, but silly not to use, nonetheless.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111262

Intresting take from scarbs.

horse wrote:

wuzak wrote:Basically what I am getting at is that there will be no exhaust blowing effects. And certainly not to the degree we have seen in the past 3 or 4 seasons.

I would disagree with that. I think that with what they have learned about exhaust deflection over the past two seasons and the monkey seat regulations as they stand, that not having the "blown" seat would be a serious disadvantage. True, perhaps not to EBD levels, but silly not to use, nonetheless.

How can it possibly be blown?

Huntresa wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111262

Intresting take from scarbs.

Yes, that would be very ugly.

The simple solution woudl be for the FIA tech delegates to say that this doesn't comply with the intent of the regulations, even if it does comply with the letter, and thus will not be accepted.

I wonder if teams like Ferrari and McLaren, who both have recent experience with lower noses, will opt for a nicer look.

oh dear ... it would only a matter of time until people labelled this nose something rude. I think a member of this forum posted this very design before though - it seems awfully familiar.

wuzak wrote: The simple solution woudl be for the FIA tech delegates to say that this doesn't comply with the intent of the regulations, even if it does comply with the letter, and thus will not be accepted.

I don't see how can this would be feasible...every single exhaust of the last two years didn't comply with the intent of the regulations, still they were permitted...

to be more general, most of the design of all the cars is based on complying with the letter without complying with the intent since the intent is to limit performance and the designer must want exactly the opposite

wuzak wrote:How can it possibly be blown?

You aim/place the underside of the aerodynamic surface near the plume. This will increase it's performance. It would work something like a circulation control wing in reverse.

horse wrote:

wuzak wrote:How can it possibly be blown?

You aim/place the underside of the aerodynamic surface near the plume. This will increase it's performance. It would work something like a circulation control wing in reverse.

The aerodynamic surface cannot be within 15mm of the plume.

wuzak wrote:

horse wrote:

wuzak wrote:How can it possibly be blown?

You aim/place the underside of the aerodynamic surface near the plume. This will increase it's performance. It would work something like a circulation control wing in reverse.

The aerodynamic surface cannot be within 15mm of the plume.

15 mm isn't much

radosav wrote:

wuzak wrote:

horse wrote:
You aim/place the underside of the aerodynamic surface near the plume. This will increase it's performance. It would work something like a circulation control wing in reverse.

The aerodynamic surface cannot be within 15mm of the plume.

15 mm isn't much

Depends how you define the plume. Does anyone know?

With there being a "green zone" in the width of the current monkey seat and straight up to the wing, could we see something like an 8 or 9 plane Monkey seat stretching all the way up to the rear wing?