In my opinion it must be Y250 vortex generator. And if i assume right you could also know its way of rotaion in its very possible direction of rotation (anti direction like diffuzor vortex). That parameters is pretty easy to guess. According my reading of many articles, tech analysis, fluid dynamics etc. they use it in control of tire wake and it helps managing unsteady (when car is in yaw and tow) flow toward floor (prevent stall diffuzor from side=more consistent downforce).turbof1 wrote:Personally I feel they have to do that else they have stalling issues at the wing tips. Under load the upper tip could be pressed in the lower one, choking air there and dissipating the crucial Y250 vortex.
Normally strakes underneath the front wing should take care of this, giving enough rigidity to the elements. It could be they are using the strakes different. But that's difficult to tell since there are no pictures of the underside of the FW.
Or it could be something else. I can draw lines and vortices in my head. Having an idea about the patterns isn't the issue.
Just checked the team's media site: nothing is available, which is somewhat expected.turbof1 wrote:
Normally strakes underneath the front wing should take care of this, giving enough rigidity to the elements. It could be they are using the strakes different. But that's difficult to tell since there are no pictures of the underside of the FW.
Ah, I thought you need any But, yes, for the sake of being correct, that's the old front wing used in Bahrain tests. Generally, the design of the front wing 'underbody', if I can use the term, should not differ that much. Judging from the previous incarnations, the FW features again three vertical equal interval strakes, but the initial spec was 6-ties one (2013). Here's the F138 being prepared for Australia last year:turbof1 wrote:Kiril I really appreciate the effort, and I'm sorry to say this, but that's the old FW.
28.4 b) For the purposes of this Article 28.4 the power unit will be deemed to comprise six separate elements, the engine (ICE), the motor generator unit-kinetic (MGU-K), the motor generator unit-heat (MGU-H), the energy store (ES), turbocharger (TC) and control electronics (CE).Ganxxta wrote:About that... I checked their website and one of their "regular" products is this:
http://turbo.honeywell.com/our-technolo ... ochargers/
Is this possible with F1 rules or has a conventional design to be used?
If they used the same idea for their F1 Turbo and their numbers are more or less adoptable, this would be a big advantage compared to a conventional turbo design for F1 terms.
I'm surprised that they are sharing so many technical details, have fun:
http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/ ... tation.pdf
What do you guys think?
I couldn't agree more, it makes more sense to dump the drag than adding more HP at least at this stage of the season. I would still expect Ferrari to operate at a slightly higher rake than in testing. Curious to see if RB continue with that.bhallg2k wrote:I recently made this mistake, too..poz wrote:I don't think it's always a good strategy: higher down force means higher speed in turn so less energy to (re)accelerate the car.eslam1986 wrote: i think FERRARI tend this year for less drag set up(more max speed) to save fuel .
Because drag squares with speed, and the power required to overcome that drag cubes at the same time, drag is far more detrimental to fuel efficiency. For instance, a car using 10 bhp to travel at 50 MPH will encounter 4x more drag at 100 MPH, and it will require 8x more power to get there. Scale the figures up to F1 levels, where drag coefficients can be as much as 4-5x higher than road cars and speeds can reach 200+ MPH, then it becomes easy to see how even a small drag reduction can have a significant impact on performance. The limitations on fuel this year mean such aerodynamic gains have never been more critical.
Any Turbo will be limited by the Varible Geometry rule 5.9.1scuderiafan wrote: Says nothing about turbo design.
I made nice research on that area in here http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 66#p458366 on "Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula" topic.scuderiafan wrote:28.4 b) For the purposes of this Article 28.4 the power unit will be deemed to comprise six separate elements, the engine (ICE), the motor generator unit-kinetic (MGU-K), the motor generator unit-heat (MGU-H), the energy store (ES), turbocharger (TC) and control electronics (CE).Ganxxta wrote:About that... I checked their website and one of their "regular" products is this:
http://turbo.honeywell.com/our-technolo ... ochargers/
Is this possible with F1 rules or has a conventional design to be used?
If they used the same idea for their F1 Turbo and their numbers are more or less adoptable, this would be a big advantage compared to a conventional turbo design for F1 terms.
I'm surprised that they are sharing so many technical details, have fun:
http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/ ... tation.pdf
What do you guys think?
Says nothing about turbo design.
SORRY but this very polite suggestion has been formulated in a way that seems to imply that we are NOT ALLOWED to participate in this forum if not guided properly. I got that from your USE OF CAPS LOCK.aleks_ader wrote: Before also the user "Holm86" proposed that type of technology so you are no the first and last who ask this. So PLEASE read linked topic. Cheers!