2010 cars

[ISLAMATRON]

no they do not, look very close to the tire on the left of the pic and you will see the line where the exhaust ends and the cap begins.

[wesley123]

this is a great example of 'how you view things' really, on some angles it exits out of the bodywork, but on the FIA templates where areas etc. are set it does not, thus it is legal.

[Fil]

They are still prodtruding from the bodywork..

The caps are removed before the engine is fired up.
as Tron said, once removed, the actual exhaust itself is legally below the bodywork.

[Callum]

I stand corrected, on the second picture, in the wet, they look fine.


EDIT: look at the second picture, its a different car, different diffuser. I go back to my orgigonal statement

[ISLAMATRON]

the exhausts extend or contract according to the weather... in human terms it is called "shrinkage"

[roost89]

the exhausts extend or contract according to the weather... in human terms it is called "shrinkage"

and when there's water the shrinkage is unprecedented!

apologies, I couldn't resist. A (rubbish) joke had to be put there

[Callum]

They have created an organic exhaust system!

[djos]

On the topic of engines/fuel economy for 2010 F1 cars, there is a great analysis over HERE by rubbergoat on the fuel usage by the various F1 engines etc showing Renault as the most fuel efficient.





This could make thinks really interesting in 2010 as some teams like Ferrari & Sauber will have to put bigger tanks in their cars than Merc/MacMerc/Renault/RedBull will.

[WhiteBlue]

It confirms my information from AMuS that Ferrari would have been screwed if the 2009 engines were used next year. But they will not be used. Ferrari have politicked via FOTA to have the whole thing equalized both with regard to power and fuel consumption.

One needs to consider that the customer engines typically ran without KERS while the manufacturer engines ran with KERS.

Another influence is the downforce and drag level of the chassis. Obviously Brawn had a higher downforce and drag over the whole season than McLaren had. So these figures do not only signify the engine but also the average KERS and the average aero config.

[PlatinumZealot]

The Renault looks Magical!

[djos]

The Renault looks Magical!

It's certainly impressive!

[outer_bongolia]

The Renault looks Magical!

It's certainly impressive!

That alone could make RB and Renault one of the lead contenders. On the other hand I remember Renault enginers being a little bit short on power.

It will be interesting to see how they will fare against Merc and Ferrari engines especially after those guys come with some tweaks to their engines.

[timbo]

Funny graph))) Reminds me of that marketing tricks to lure client into believing their product is sooooo much better. Draw full bars (from zero) and you'd see a really tiny difference.
The only thing that can be deduced from this graph is - aero (or engine maps?) rules.
Also, people who think that KERS makes a difference in fuel consumption are wrong. In no way 400J per lap may save a car 100grams of fuel per lap (like what can be seen from Brawn/FI/McLaren).

[marcush.]

Funny graph))) Reminds me of that marketing tricks to lure client into believing their product is sooooo much better. Draw full bars (from zero) and you'd see a really tiny difference.
The only thing that can be deduced from this graph is - aero (or engine maps?) rules.
Also, people who think that KERS makes a difference in fuel consumption are wrong. In no way 400J per lap may save a car 100grams of fuel per lap (like what can be seen from Brawn/FI/McLaren).

exactly my thoughts..
In the seventies there were real differences with thirsty and heavy engines in Ferrari ,Matra,Alfa compared to Cossis...
The cars alone had differences in weight of 40kilos in 1976...plus the around
30 litres of fuel the 12 cylinder engines consumed additionally over a race distance compared to a cossi...
so the start weight difference was about 40-60kilos if I remember correctly ..but todays it looks more like 10 at the very extreme and No difference at the end of the race ....
We are looking at a difference of .01 in power to weight difference across the entire field in 2010 at the startline ....so it is big blabla about nothing .
those 15 litres delta in needed Volume amount to a sensational increase of 10mm in Car length max.. also a VERY deciding factor for car performance :lol...

[stl0]

Funny graph))) Reminds me of that marketing tricks to lure client into believing their product is sooooo much better. Draw full bars (from zero) and you'd see a really tiny difference.
The only thing that can be deduced from this graph is - aero (or engine maps?) rules.

I've used graphs just like this myself. Very sneaky indeed, but the data does bring up an interesting notion. If the full race fuel regulation applied to last years cars would result in something like a 6kg difference at the start between the Merc and the Brawn with full race fuel, imagine what you could do if you designed the aero with increased attention to drag reduction at the expense of downforce for 2010. If teams could reduce drag to the point where they start the race 25kg lighter than their competitors, that is a big difference, and they would be faster at the start and difficult to overtake until the fuel weights were equalized towards the end of the race.

I think the 2010 regs move the sweet spot between reducing drag and maximizing downforce more to the side of reducing downforce. At the very least, teams will have to make a choice about where the new sweet spot is.

It could also lead to some interesting races, with the teams who favored drag reduction strong at the start of races and the teams who favored downforce stronger at the end of races.

Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but tying fuel efficiency to potentially significant weight savings does move the goalposts.

Just a thought.