- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
The current 2010 rules still allow them....Giblet wrote:Apparently wheel fairings are getting the heave ho as well.
does it take into account the 300mm rule for the front of the fuel cell(under the driver's back)?
...I've only gone 500mm wide on the fuel cell, so could easily widen it and bring it back from the driver....Does it take into account the 800mm max width of the fuel cell?
What is the total volume of the fuel cell?
....based on 0.75 SGWhat density did you use for the fuel(to convert to kg's since that is what the teams quote to us mostly)?
....100-115kg, so between 50-60 laps depending on fuel used per lap.... I guess I might need to make this slightly bigger...What is the max amount of fuel(in kg) able to be carried?
I'll need to check (not at home at the moment)What was the final wheelbase?
[/quote][/quote]And what was the estimated weight and weight bias, not including the ballast?
Faily sure they have been banned. Its been talked about quite abit. I know some of the designers have talked about it.machin wrote: Giblet wrote:Apparently wheel fairings are getting the heave ho as well.
The current 2010 rules still allow them....
They certainly talked about it... but then didn't change them...Faily sure they have been banned. Its been talked about quite abit.
No... The rules say:-Pandamasque wrote:Isn't the pedal unit too far forward? I expected the driver's feet to be behind the front suspension, not in it.
so widen to 800mm and take into account the 300mm from the driver's rear bulkhead rule and econfigure... I'm sure we can all agree that wider is better than higher, and depending on the wheelbase better than longer too.machin wrote:does it take into account the 300mm rule for the front of the fuel cell(under the driver's back)?
Ooo... potentially not (missed that rule)... but....
...I've only gone 500mm wide on the fuel cell, so could easily widen it and bring it back from the driver....Does it take into account the 800mm max width of the fuel cell?
Most sources are estimating a need for about 150-160 kg of fuel to complete the race, the fuel cell must be designed for the highest fuel consumption tracks, Spa & Monza maybe? So maybe up to 175 kg max... that would be 233L,(at your .75SG) so your drivers would have a very frustrating yearmachin wrote:What is the total volume of the fuel cell?
approx 170 litres.....
....based on 0.75 SGWhat density did you use for the fuel(to convert to kg's since that is what the teams quote to us mostly)?
....100-115kg, so between 50-60 laps depending on fuel used per lap.... I guess I might need to make this slightly bigger...What is the max amount of fuel(in kg) able to be carried?
Dont hold out on us manmachin wrote:I'll need to check (not at home at the moment)What was the final wheelbase?
...again I'll have to check when I get home....And what was the estimated weight and weight bias, not including the ballast?
Not a bad plan at all... low fuel consumption means you are going for wins at Monoco, Hungary, Singapore, Valencia(maybe)... the tight and twisties... aero not as important, just pile on DF by the tons... SHORTER WHEELBASE IS A MUST!.. but how short is too short? Seems to me all the teams will be doing their best to minimize wheel base with the refueling ban in place since longer fuel tank is probly better than higher(to a certain point)... The major difference between 2010 and the last time refueling was banned is that the driver's feet can not be in front of the front wheel centerline(a very logical safety rule)... but that makes the cars a bit longer even though the engines and gearboxes are much more compact now.machin wrote:Being a small independant team I have designed the car to be brilliant at low fuel consumption tracks... as we don't have the resources to compete with the top teams at ALL the tracks... this way at low fuel consumption tracks we will have a weight-distribution and aerodynamic advantage!
I think that's a trick of the perspective in the third picture... if you look at the 2nd pic (view from above) you can see that the fronts are narrower than the rears (the frnts are 330mm, and the rears 380mm).Tonn wrote:how wide are the front tyres? they seem a bit too wide for 2010
Where did you get 330 number?machin wrote:I think that's a trick of the perspective in the third picture... if you look at the 2nd pic (view from above) you can see that the fronts are narrower than the rears (the frnts are 330mm, and the rears 380mm).Tonn wrote:how wide are the front tyres? they seem a bit too wide for 2010
Oh wow, that is narrow! I'll have to change that then.... any ideas on an official width for the rears???timbo wrote:Here it is stated to be 245mm