Lotus T127 Cosworth

[LotusF1]

I won't mention the source, but this is an e-mail I got. Take it for what it's worth.

Thanks ________we are already aware.

Without seeing the ____________ we know that Gascoyne has interests in
the Aerolab wind tunnel, the facility used by Force India when he was
employed by them.

We know the model pictured is in fact the model used by Aerolab

Best regards

without source anyone can write this...car is completely different...even fw is completely different....

[bazanaius]

I just got an email. Won't give the source, but I think it's fairly conclusive:

Dear __________

Thank you for your questions, in reply I can offer the following information;

1) The moon landing was indeed a hoax, all organised by _______ in fact. Luckily he managed to pay off the mexicans though, and so it's all been swept under the ____.

2) ____ shot JFK. Apparently it was over a disagreement regarding part exchange on a 1962 Cadillac.

3) 9/11 was in fact organised by Bruce Forsyth. A long standing hatred of _____ following a dodgy incident with a burger in 1999 escalated, and things got out of hand.

4) The meaning of life is officially 42.

I hope this helps,

____________

[Astro1]

Knew I should have not posted that LOL. Like I said for the not so bright on the board. "take it for what it's worth" to begin with. Here you are posting rubbish.

regardless I don't care, it is what it is.

as for LotusF1

Though I respect scarbs posts that you are riding. YOU have no idea what YOU are talking about.

And though the car is slightly different, it is in fact a basic model used to design the FI and it appears also the Lotus.

In fact, my post above states nothing to say the car is different or not, but what I am stating, is that the car above is an Aerolab model be it FI, Lotus or whatever you want it to be. I'm sure late that will become clear if not already evident by the apparent connection.

Regards.

[Mystery Steve]

don't they cost a cool £1/4m to design and build?

Yes... they do. That is why it seems legitimate that they would sell off an antiquated model to a new team rather than just junk it. And just because it isn't in 2010 fully competitive race trim does not mean this can't be an incredibly useful tool. As I said before, and Jersey Tom reiterated, one of the purposes of the wind tunnel is to verify that the data they are getting from CFD is correct. Just because it isn't in race trim doesn't mean they can't change small things here and there and gain an understanding for what they do. Once they are comfortable with the process, they can begin designing the 2010 body with more confidence. These models take time to build as well, so if they can start getting the process down almost immediately, it would actually put them in a better position to design an effective car in the end.

Effective design work (completed in a timely manner and delivering on performance) is as much about the PROCESS as it is about the FINAL PRODUCT.

[Astro1]

don't they cost a cool £1/4m to design and build?

Yes... they do. That is why it seems legitimate that they would sell off an antiquated model to a new team rather than just junk it. And just because it isn't in 2010 fully competitive race trim does not mean this can't be an incredibly useful tool. As I said before, and Jersey Tom reiterated, one of the purposes of the wind tunnel is to verify that the data they are getting from CFD is correct. Just because it isn't in race trim doesn't mean they can't change small things here and there and gain an understanding for what they do. Once they are comfortable with the process, they can begin designing the 2010 body with more confidence. These models take time to build as well, so if they can start getting the process down almost immediately, it would actually put them in a better position to design an effective car in the end.

Effective design work (completed in a timely manner and delivering on performance) is as much about the PROCESS as it is about the FINAL PRODUCT.

Agreed, though I think the real question is the PR stunt. Because IMO, it has little to do with the 2010 car other than give Lotus a platform to study and play with. I feel that the actual car will have to built more from scratch and be a bit different. That car model whatever you want to call it resembles the 2009 FI design too much to be considered; not to mention that it's a bit early? to reveal prototypes as we're still racing 09.

I guess the real gripe I have, is the false idea that this PR move gives; an idea that Lotus has an almost completed prototype ready to go when all it is, is a study tool IMO brought to Lotus by Gascoyne from FI. All while ready to go experienced teams like Sauber are on the sidelines. (Yes I know rules are rules and they missed out).

[Shaddock]

Can anyone tell if it's a single keel or twin keel design. The barge boards are set well forward on the chassis and attached to a inverted T

[scarbs]

I thinks its quite clearly a zero keel car, I don't see a twin or single keel returning to F1.

[Astro1]

100% Zero Keel as is the VJM02 . As far as the barge boards being attached to an "inverted T" that's fine, but that attachment has nothing to do with the suspension keel.

[deus1066]

I thinks its quite clearly a zero keel car, I don't see a twin or single keel returning to F1.

I wonder though, with ever tightening aero regulations, whether twin-keel may return as a way of incorporating some sort of aero condtioners/deflectors... sort of like an upside down version of the nose of red-bulls current car, or the twin keel on the Mclaren MP4-18

[Shaddock]

100% Zero Keel as is the VJM02 . As far as the barge boards being attached to an "inverted T" that's fine, but that attachment has nothing to do with the suspension keel.

Where does the lower wishbone mount to? I can't make it out from the photo.

If they are going to use an inverted T on the centre line of the car as the attachment for the barge boards, then the advantages of the zero keel layout have already gone, and they are only left with the disadvantages.

[Astro1]

I'm not sure, but

This is a scale aero car, so it doesn't mount anywhere (I think) but would mount to the chassis, and the advantage of a zero keel is exactly that ability in creating more room under the nose to mount flow conditioner items such as those barge boards.

[scarbs]

100% Zero Keel as is the VJM02 . As far as the barge boards being attached to an "inverted T" that's fine, but that attachment has nothing to do with the suspension keel.

Where does the lower wishbone mount to? I can't make it out from the photo.

If they are going to use an inverted T on the centre line of the car as the attachment for the barge boards, then the advantages of the zero keel layout have already gone, and they are only left with the disadvantages.

The wishbone bolts up into the lower surface of the tub, this is a common layout.
The small T piece is probably all but aero neutral, certainly compared a thick single keel. Using a T-piece over a vertical mount is probably just a decision where the team fit bibbons inot the tub to bolt the parts to.

[marcush.]

the details of the windtunnelcar make me wonder....isn´t it MORE important to get everything very precise into minute detail when working on a scaled down piece?
I assume you might miss a lot of things when not detailing out the car ....??

[noname]

the details of the windtunnelcar make me wonder....isn´t it MORE important to get everything very precise into minute detail when working on a scaled down piece?
I assume you might miss a lot of things when not detailing out the car ....??

you are using scaled model. very detailed (I assume you mean geometry).
can you simulate real flow very precisely ?
can you simulate car-track interaction ?
its behavior under yaw or pitch, influence of the flexibility of its components (wings, tires, suspension, steps and gaps...) ?
can you measure influence of these fine details with high precision ?

[axle]

Applause...the only way that you guys think it might be a FI replica is by theory, otherwise axle you work for FI and have been working on next years car and maybe they look very similar...imo its totally different...

You seem to be taking this all personally...

You haven't given any informed counter arguments.
We have a number of facts;
1. Aerolab have a Force India 50% model
2. Aerolab have been used by MG for most of his working career.
3. There are many parts that are IDENTICAL to the VJM02. Floor, monocoque, Front Wing mount points for the flow conditioners, forward sidepod shape, the list goes on.

Answer me this, why would LF1 copy a VJM02? Last years car? Not even at the front of the grid?

Occum's razor.

They haven't, they have borrowed (lol) FI's car.