A 100% model will give them an unfair advantage over a team running a 60% model. So the teams with 60% models will be forced to junk that asset and build a tunnel for a 100% model (or their 3rd party test labs will have to do that). Hence the limitation on 60% models.jddh1 wrote:If you already have a tunnel that can accommodate the full model, I don't see why not.
Looking at the regs, I think I've found what USF1 are gong to do...
.. and when you look at 22.1(a) iii) ...22.1(h) With the exception of the full scale testing permitted in 22.1(a) above, no wind tunnel testing may be carried out using a scale model which is greater than 60 percent of full size.
It seems that USF1 talk of full scale testing is based on trading in 6 days of mid season aero testing for 6 x 4 hours of full scale wind tunnel testing.22.1 (a) iii) six one day aerodynamic tests carried out on FIA approved straight line or constant radius sites between 1 January 2010 and the end of the last Event of the Championship. Any of these days may be substituted for four hours of wind-on full scale wind tunnel testing to be carried out in a single twenty four hour period.
If they had a 60% model they could test much more freely. I recall a FOTA agreement on the hours, and also processor limitations for CFD. I can't find the ref.
