Machin's 2010 Car launch... sort of!

[machin]

I've checked out the "300mm" rule and it says that:-

no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of the highest point at which the driver's back makes contact with his seat

So the car is just compliant.... Oh and the wheelbase is 3100mm which is as short as the shortest cars in 2007 according to the F1 Technical Analysis book I have (2007-2008 edition)...

[timbo]

Here it is stated to be 245mm

Oh wow, that is narrow! I'll have to change that then.... any ideas on an official width for the rears???

Rears will stay the same.
Here's info on tyre shape
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... -tyre.html
245 seems to be contact patch width. The tyre itself is wider, more like what you said, but I'd probably want to change profile of the tyre anyway.

[machin]

Tyre shape (with 245mm contact patch) now updated.... also this screen shot has no perspective, so its easier to see the difference between front and rears:-

[ISLAMATRON]

I've checked out the "300mm" rule and it says that:-

no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of the highest point at which the driver's back makes contact with his seat

So the car is just compliant.... Oh and the wheelbase is 3100mm which is as short as the shortest cars in 2007 according to the F1 Technical Analysis book I have (2007-2008 edition)...

Outstanding... but make it 301mm instead of 298...

3100mm wheelbase... is that with the wider and bigger(longer) fuel tank? or the original 75% race distance tank you first put in?

Alot of the teams went shorter on wheelbase from 2008 to 2009 right? cant remember...

[megz]

I've checked out the "300mm" rule and it says that:-

no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of the highest point at which the driver's back makes contact with his seat

So the car is just compliant.... Oh and the wheelbase is 3100mm which is as short as the shortest cars in 2007 according to the F1 Technical Analysis book I have (2007-2008 edition)...

Outstanding... but make it 301mm instead of 298...

3100mm wheelbase... is that with the wider and bigger(longer) fuel tank? or the original 75% race distance tank you first put in?

Alot of the teams went shorter on wheelbase from 2008 to 2009 right? cant remember...

Must a person do this in every thread?

[Scotracer]

I've checked out the "300mm" rule and it says that:-

no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of the highest point at which the driver's back makes contact with his seat

So the car is just compliant.... Oh and the wheelbase is 3100mm which is as short as the shortest cars in 2007 according to the F1 Technical Analysis book I have (2007-2008 edition)...

Outstanding... but make it 301mm instead of 298...

3100mm wheelbase... is that with the wider and bigger(longer) fuel tank? or the original 75% race distance tank you first put in?

Alot of the teams went shorter on wheelbase from 2008 to 2009 right? cant remember...

Must a person do this in every thread?

Specifically, it's only seems to be one person.

[WhiteBlue]

Well done machin. From the build up we can see how the new, bigger fuel tank integrates with the tub. I was wondering if you made a simillar study with a small refuelling tank? Side by side it would probably make a very nice illustration of the rule change.

[machin]

3100mm wheelbase... is that with the wider and bigger(longer) fuel tank? or the original 75% race distance tank you first put in?

I've not changed the length... only the width... remember the original tank was only 500mm wide... I'll post an updated pic, but I won't be home now for a few days.....

[machin]

This view shows the wider tank: Now 210 litres. You'll also notice that I've had to change the heat exchangers (and thus the side-pods) to retain what looks to be a sensible cross-sectional area.... this means there is very little undercut to the side-pods in the middle of the car... (which looking at the current cars is exactly what they have -little undercut at mid-section):-

[machin]

Well done machin. From the build up we can see how the new, bigger fuel tank integrates with the tub. I was wondering if you made a simillar study with a small refuelling tank? Side by side it would probably make a very nice illustration of the rule change.

Thanks! I've not tried this.... Basically the smaller tank would allow the engine to be moved forward, thus shortening the chassis, but would require a spacer between the engine and the gearbox... If I get time I'll modify one of these models to illustrate -as you say, it will be interesting to see side-by-side ...

[machin]

Believe it or not these two screen shots are different... top one represents the CG (pink circle) with empty fuel tank, and the bottom one with full fuel tank, Note small change in % Ft:Rr.

Its only an estimate of course based on giving the major components "reasonable" weights (e.g. it assumes the engine is 95kg's as per the minimum in the rules... the driver is 80kg's (my weight!), etc) and then making up to 600kgs (I've assumed the car would have 20kg's of moveable ballast and not included it in the model at the moment) by altering the density of the body... not ideal, but without going into structural calculations to determine required tub thicknesses etc its the best I can do in my spare time!

Oh, and going back to the wheelbase; this is with a driver of my height; 6ft 2", -a bit tall for a typical F1 driver and could represent one reason how the real 2010 cars get smaller wheelbases (maybe... we'll have to wait and see!)...

[machin]

Just playing around with rendering settings.... the details are easier to see this way:-

[machin]

Apparently wheel fairings are getting the heave ho as well.

I finally bothered to copy the relevant section from the rules:- Section 11.4 is unchanged from 2009 in the current 2010 rules on the FIA website, so wheel fairings are still allowed:-

11.4 Air ducts :
Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not
protrude beyond :
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of
the wheel ;
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of
the wheel ;
- a vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward
the centre line of the car.
Furthermore, when viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond a radius of 330mm
from the centre of the wheel or backwards beyond a radius of 180mm from the centre of the wheel.
All measurements will be made with the wheel held in a vertical position.

[Giblet]

Apparently wheel fairings are getting the heave ho as well.

I finally bothered to copy the relevant section from the rules:- Section 11.4 is unchanged from 2009 in the current 2010 rules on the FIA website, so wheel fairings are still allowed:-

11.4 Air ducts :
Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not
protrude beyond :
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of
the wheel ;
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of
the wheel ;
- a vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward
the centre line of the car.
Furthermore, when viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond a radius of 330mm
from the centre of the wheel or backwards beyond a radius of 180mm from the centre of the wheel.
All measurements will be made with the wheel held in a vertical position.

I think that is speaking about the brake ducts on the inside of the wheels, not the fairings on the outside. The reason there is nothing in the rules about fairings is there was no rule ever written about them. It was a new idea that Ferrari started, as there was no rule stating otherwise.

I can't find the article, but I am sure that wheel fairings were outlawed, or agreed not to be used by FOTA in 2010.

I could be wrong, but my memory is ringing.

[Professor]

Excellent work, but I have some doubts. Without getting too mathmathical, without ballast, I suspect that the car, with the engine, gearbox, and rear suspension will be much heavier than the front half of the car (driver included). All of that dead load is well behind the centerline of the wheelbase. If the ballast placement moves the center of mass to the centerline of the wheelbase, then we have a neutral center of mass when fuel empty.

If one could place the fuel load at exactly the center of mass, and have it remain there regardless of the fuel load, the center of mass would remain the same, theoretically.

Is that what you suggest?