F1technical.net

WilliamsF1 wrote:What Jenson says is questionable

The gear ratio of the 8th gear is going to be based on monza 340 kmph, with final ratio used only for the 30 kmph (or less), I don't see how/why Jenson would be jumping to 8th any sooner

Better acceleration (turbo torque) and less drag with all the appendages removed. Don't forget they've been also trying to shed a lot of drag for better fuel economy.

I think what Jenson means is... say at Circuit X, Turn Y, you went into 7th gear (V8 engine) at the 250m marking board. With the new engines, they'll be pulling into 8th gear (V6 turbo) at the 275m mark instead. (random, made up numbers)

If the power band is so wide, then all the gears can be made tall, why only 8th?

WilliamsF1 wrote:If the power band is so wide, then all the gears can be made tall, why only 8th?

ALL of them will be tall - but remember that they have better acceleration (less drag, more torque) and also less RPM. You will hit the top of the tall 7th gear, quicker than you would have hit the top of the short 7th gear (V8)

raymondu999 wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:If the power band is so wide, then all the gears can be made tall, why only 8th?

ALL of them will be tall - but remember that they have better acceleration (less drag, more torque) and also less RPM. You will hit the top of the tall 7th gear, quicker than you would have hit the top of the short 7th gear (V8)

As per that logic it defeats the purpose of having 8th gear at all. 8th gear was allowed so that the fixed gear ratios for the season is workable. So to say that you will be on 8th gear often is quiet misleading just as the meter long throttle pedal.

If the engine produces a flat power output between 10000 and 12000, then the gear could look like in the follwing table. First gear is still traction limited, so i set it for speed of 90kmh at 12000rpm. You would enter 8th gear at ~270kmh and then rev it slightly over 12000, in my example to 13000.

Isn't the key point of Jenson's comment that power is limited by fuel flow, thus once the engines are spinning fast enough to need all that fuel, spinning them faster doesn't make more power, so the torque must drop off with increased RPM. Short-shifting will keep the engine spinning slower, which is more efficient, so might actually produce more net power. They might run to 11000rpm (figure plucked from thin air) in 1st-7th gear and then all the way to the limiter in 8th gear on the main straights. As such, they'll be into 8th gear before they were into 7th this year and use 8th a lot of the way down the straight. The wonders of a power-limited engine formula!

my eg. would be 80, 100, 118, 137, 158, 180, 206, 220 mph

Maybe could be of some use, last gear is reached a bit earlier then when Hamilton flicks in 7th.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHr564iTNqI[/youtube]

Another render of 2013 vs. 2014 cars:
https://twitter.com/Kiril_Varbanov/stat ... 9106161664

Kiril Varbanov wrote:Another render of 2013 vs. 2014 cars:

https://twitter.com/Kiril_Varbanov/stat ... 9106161664

That's pretty old. Its been shown in here many pages ago.

EDIT: not in this thread though. But its almost 2 months old

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 1&start=90

Sevach wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbXrzcmCMAAGH-t.jpg:large

This looks extremely cool though farfetched.

On twitter Scarbs also has a nose proposition based on the old Mclaren snow plough.

Can anyone tell me if the sidepod design on this is actually legal and within the rules? thinking on having a go at my own design based on a idea with the sidepod's on here. So would like an idea of on restriction's with regards to height etc.

KingHamilton01 wrote:

Sevach wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbXrzcmCMAAGH-t.jpg:large

This looks extremely cool though farfetched.

On twitter Scarbs also has a nose proposition based on the old Mclaren snow plough.

Can anyone tell me if the sidepod design on this is actually legal and within the rules? thinking on having a go at my own design based on a idea with the sidepod's on here. So would like an idea of on restriction's with regards to height etc.

I don't see why it shouldn't be legal. I think it will be hard to achieve in the real world though.

The only issue I can see with those sidepods, is that the flip up shape ahead of the rear tyre meets the R75 rule.

And the tunnel below the sidepod inlet would make it very hard to place an intercooler/radiator large enough to meet the cooling requirements for the 2014 turbo engines.

I think the tunnel is illegal:

Article 3.8.4 wrote:Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm :
[...]
c) The volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.

Once the 'tunnel' is open at the front and back, the surfaces of the tunnel become 'external' surfaces, and must therefore be continuous with the outer surface of the sidepod.