toyota B spec

Post 28 Apr 2006, 18:58

As from I have heard, the new Toyota sports mechanical changes and has a new smaller fuel tank.

f1.redbaron · Post 29 Apr 2006, 00:29

ginsu wrote: No changes?

Did you see the rockers on that thing? Very extreme, protruding from the nose cone about 5-7cm. This must be to correct the issues with the suspension geometry on the zero-keel layout, making a greater angle between the pushrod and the suspension arms. This is exactly what Steve Machett was talking about and is the main reason why Ferrari have not switched to zero keel layout.

It also looks like they'e changed the winglets near the rear wheels on the thing, although it's hard to see in the picture, but it looks like they've attached them to the chimney, ala Ferrari.

To be honest, I didn't see the rockers. I'll blame it on the small, low quality picture.

When I looked at the pictures, I was looking for more drastic changes. I was looking for something that would collect 18 points in a single race, something that would scream "Get out of my way, I'm about to lap you", something with shark's teeth painted on the nose...I don't know. I guess I was looking for some kind of clue that Toyota might win just one race this year, and not the car that might get some points. A few months ago when I heard that there will be a "B"-car, I thought that the difference between TF106A and TF106B will be the same as they were with TF105A and TF105B. Not so...at least on the surface.

Then I saw the times from Paul Ricard. 2nd and 3rd fastest! That's gotta be great, right? Well no, because there were only 3 cars testing that day anyway, which suggests that they will be no better off with this version than they were with the original.

I hope I'm wrong

m3_lover · Post 17 May 2006, 05:50

At paul Richard on tuesday

Jarno Trulli was third quickest at Ricard as Toyota ran revised aerodynamics on the B-spec chassis scheduled to make its debut at Monaco.

West · Post 17 May 2006, 07:58

They should have never fired Gascoyne, that's for sure. Damn Toyota politics.

If the spec B is not a substantially better car, that company better consider their position in F1 as a team.

MrT · Post 23 May 2006, 22:02

Whoever said they would need to build up the wishbones to take the pushrod forces is incorrect, toyota drive the pushrod directly off the upright as do most of the teams now.

Tp · Post 23 May 2006, 23:00

Whoever said they would need to build up the wishbones

I think this was just said as an option to reduce load on the the pushrods, by mounting it lower down on the lower wishbones

MrT · Post 24 May 2006, 20:54

If they did that they would lose other key benifits they gain by mounting it to the upright.

m3_lover · Post 24 May 2006, 21:13

Im starting to go that this B-spec car is a lot of hype, at the start of the year last year, Toyota was doing really well, then when they introduced the b-spec during the last 6 races, it was not that competitive compared to other cars.

Post 24 May 2006, 21:38

Here's more about the new car:
http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/911

They have actually made the fuel tank longer and made the spacer (that fills the void of V10 to V8 with same wheelbase) shorter by 10cm.

DaveKillens · Post 24 May 2006, 22:18

Well done Tomba, interesting. I do wonder why Toyota didn't just extend the rear of the chassis instead of usung a spacer. They went to all the trouble of a new tub with the front single keel removed, yet retained the same rear dimensions. Is it possible this is just an evolutionary step, with the rear end to be addressed next?

RacingManiac · Post 24 May 2006, 22:38

MrT wrote:Whoever said they would need to build up the wishbones to take the pushrod forces is incorrect, toyota drive the pushrod directly off the upright as do most of the teams now.

That does not change the fact that the lower wishbone is taking more load than a comparable car with more "ideal" suspension geometry. Its not pushrod giving a-arm the load, its the overall suspension geometry itself and how the loads are being resolved.

zac510 · Post 24 May 2006, 23:20

Nice tomba, cheers.

I can't believe they put the spacer between the monocoque and engine, sounds weird.. what's up with their weight balance, maybe they didn't want to mess with it too much. Are they favouring a rear balance? I don't know where to start speculating without more information

. If it were me I would have lengthened the gearbox casing and tried to keep the weight close to the COG and MOI.

Notice the torsion bar location hasn't changed - they've just modified the rocker and surrounding bodywork to restore the pushrod angle.

MrT · Post 24 May 2006, 23:22

RacingManiac wrote:
MrT wrote:Whoever said they would need to build up the wishbones to take the pushrod forces is incorrect, toyota drive the pushrod directly off the upright as do most of the teams now.
That does not change the fact that the lower wishbone is taking more load than a comparable car with more "ideal" suspension geometry. Its not pushrod giving a-arm the load, its the overall suspension geometry itself and how the loads are being resolved.

I Agree, I said the comment on the pushrod mounting to the wishbone at a greater angle was incorrect, and implied nothing further.

ginsu · Post 25 May 2006, 01:23

I agree, the spacer does sound like a strange idea. Maybe it's a interim solution, as they've kept the single keel in place even though they run a zero keel setup. Either it's on purpose or it's a compromise. The way Toyota have been operating lately, I'm going to belive it's not an ideal solution and they made a compromise with the spacer.

m3_lover · Post 25 May 2006, 02:45

Designer: Pascal Vasselon

I wonder how much input he had on this car, as he is more of a tire specialist. then a technical director.