Toyota TF110

[ringo]

Looks are everything, aerowise. it couldn't be anything else but looks could it? I don't mean vanity, but the actual shapes of the car.
It all depends on what you can see, to what degree you can see it and what you are looking for.
How the looks work with the suspension is something that you cannot see however.

Toyota had a car last year with winning potential. They cam pretty close with a pole positon, a couple of front rows and some fastest laps. I truly believe it was their management philosophy that was their problem. Strategy wise as well, you could see where they let the car and pilots down with weak pit stop strategy. Bahrain last year could have been a win.

In the hands of the right drivers. the TF109 could have won multiple times. And I am not a toyota fan, but last year was their strongest showing.

[imightbewrong]

On the looks idea, on launch everybody said the F10 looked slow and disappointing and that the MP24 looked super-fast. Looks aren't always everything as it turned out that the F10 and the MP24 are quite similar in speed.

[ringo]

On the looks idea, on launch everybody said the F10 looked slow and disappointing and that the MP24 looked super-fast. Looks aren't always everything as it turned out that the F10 and the MP24 are quite similar in speed.

But you based that on the viewers point of view. I was one of the few that said the F10 would be fast. Most who comment on looks may have an untrained eye. But a professional like Newey for instance just needs a couple of photographs to make a judgment.
The wind tunnel works on "looks" alone as well. All it sees is the outer shell, similar to all we can see. A car's aero is all about it's dimensions which defines its looks.

I agree that not everyone can get it right though, what we can't know is how well the mechanics work, and how well they work with the aero.

[timbo]

Looks are everything, aerowise. it couldn't be anything else but looks could it? I don't mean vanity, but the actual shapes of the car.
It all depends on what you can see, to what degree you can see it and what you are looking for.

Really?
So you can map DF vs pitch/roll/yaw envelope?
You can see if some odd vortex stalls undertray at specific steering angle?
Or you can quantitatively judge how diffuser is coupled with beam wing?

Sure, you can get basic ideas. Other than that -- nothing. Should it be that easy Newey wouldn't be that sought after.

[PNSD]

Looks everything?
Pah!
When it comes to looks, from my experience engineers can look at individual items and evaluate them but when it comes to the whole, there is a reason why computers do the job !

We might like to think we can judge performance by looks but it certainly is not the case.

I agree with Timbo here.

[Tim.Wright]

Looks are everything, aerowise. it couldn't be anything else but looks could it? I don't mean vanity, but the actual shapes of the car.
It all depends on what you can see, to what degree you can see it and what you are looking for.

Ok, I agree with that point but I would guess that there is probably 0.02% of people on this board who could actually tell aero performance based on a visual inspection. So as a rule I believe no-one when they say a car looks fast.

Still, no-one here have given me any reason to belive this car was going to do anything special this year.

Tim

[timbo]

Ok, I agree with that point but I would guess that there is probably 0.02% of people on this board who could actually tell aero performance based on a visual inspection.

I bet in the era of wind tunnel testing restrictions every team would give them millions))))

Still, no-one here have given me any reason to belive this car was going to do anything special this year.

Tim

Sure.
But one can tell that they were a tad more aggressive with this design. Which could be a good thing for Toyota IMO.

[ringo]

Looks are everything, aerowise. it couldn't be anything else but looks could it? I don't mean vanity, but the actual shapes of the car.
It all depends on what you can see, to what degree you can see it and what you are looking for.

Really?
So you can map DF vs pitch/roll/yaw envelope?
You can see if some odd vortex stalls undertray at specific steering angle?
Or you can quantitatively judge how diffuser is coupled with beam wing?

Sure, you can get basic ideas. Other than that -- nothing. Should it be that easy Newey wouldn't be that sought after.

Yes you can do all those things. You see you are not looking on what i said earlier. I said it is based on the degree to what you can see. Theoretically, if i have photographic memory, and a perfect sense of estimating measurement. What could stop me from reproducing an RB6 in a CAD drawing. Put it in 3d and run it in CFD?
The tests would tell me all i need to know wouldn't it?
All you have to do is look on something, reproduce it and test what you reproduced.

I don't get the outrage, isn't seeing based on 3 dimensions? The same dimensions that define The car's aero performance? nothing else defines aero but shape; the car is a rigid geometrical object.

Look on this for example, I can bet they are not permitted in pit area.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CdqLe9UgBs[/youtube]

All this device does is see!
Looks are the most important thing, it's just that we don't know what to look for.

[timbo]

Yes you can do all those things. You see you are not looking on what i said earlier. I said it is based on the degree to what you can see. Theoretically, if i have photographic memory, and a perfect sense of estimating measurement. What could stop me from reproducing an RB6 in a CAD drawing. Put it in 3d and run it in CFD?
The tests would tell me all i need to know wouldn't it?
All you have to do is look on something, reproduce it and test what you reproduced.

Sure an easy thing to do. That's why teams still have wind-tunnels. And some actually trade track testing for full-scale wind-tunnel tests.
And you happen to have Albert 2 at home?

Looks are the most important thing, it's just that we don't know what to look for.

Nor that we have the means to do anything other than qualitative or very basic quantitative analysis.

Besides, there's a level of details that "looks" is not going to provide. E.g. bodywork elasticity. Or how much DF does exhaust on RB6 provide -- you need to have a good grasp on engine performance too.
And since you've mentioned suspension too, what it does would have a tremendous effect on how diffuser works.

[Belatti]

I guess all the crap I can read here is because people love the idea to see a "Brawn" again. Its kinda romantic. It could have happened if Toyota would have invested 700 millions in aero development with 2 parallel 24/7 windtunnels like Honda did and a guy purchased the stuff for a buck.

[PlatinumZealot]

More pictures.. I agree it looks very fast. Nakajima might have gotten a few podiums with this. hehe

http://f1around.wordpress.com/2010/05/2 ... a-em-2010/

sample:

[zgred]

It is funny to look at this front wing and compare it with Lotus front wing.





Mike is missing few details in his.

[Morteza]

Here are some more pics :















NOTE : Sorry guys, it seems the the the last two posts before mine were posted while I was writing this At the same time!

[sticky667]

so it looks like they basically replicated the Toyota wing. now they just need to work on undercutting the sidepods to shape the rear better

[ringo]

Side pods kinda fail though.
They're not as extreme as the RB or Mclaren's. Very lotus looking.

What interesting is that the V nose is not fully exploited underneath.