CaterhamF1 CT-01 Renault

[beelsebob]

Hi there, new member but have been watching this forum for ages.

I was just thinking about the new-style F1 noses and was wondering if there was any way a vent or set of turning vanes could be incorporated into the step between the chassis bulkhead and the nose itself? Or does the bulkhead have to be solid in that area?

So instead of the step you'd have a hole, with the bottom of that 'tunnel' being in line with the height of the nose. The top would be solid and would close off that, perhaps giving an opportunity to channel some air in a more favourable position?

Not an engineer so forgive me if it's completely stupid or ignores key points of the regs in any way, it was just a thought.

The reasons most teams will do this are because
1) They need as much air as they can get into the splitter
2) The monocoque has a minimum height at this point.

These combine to cause most teams to push the monocoque up to the maximum height they can, so that they have as much space beneath it as possible.

Adding a tunnel on top would simply push the monocoque down, and hence cause worse air flow to the splitter.

Apologies for rather dodging the question - I don't see anything immediately in the rules that would ban doing it; but it not actually achieving the aim of the step in the nose is probably why we'd not see it.

[danardif1]

Hi there, new member but have been watching this forum for ages.

I was just thinking about the new-style F1 noses and was wondering if there was any way a vent or set of turning vanes could be incorporated into the step between the chassis bulkhead and the nose itself? Or does the bulkhead have to be solid in that area?

So instead of the step you'd have a hole, with the bottom of that 'tunnel' being in line with the height of the nose. The top would be solid and would close off that, perhaps giving an opportunity to channel some air in a more favourable position?

Not an engineer so forgive me if it's completely stupid or ignores key points of the regs in any way, it was just a thought.

The reasons most teams will do this are because
1) They need as much air as they can get into the splitter
2) The monocoque has a minimum height at this point.

These combine to cause most teams to push the monocoque up to the maximum height they can, so that they have as much space beneath it as possible.

Adding a tunnel on top would simply push the monocoque down, and hence cause worse air flow to the splitter.

Apologies for rather dodging the question - I don't see anything immediately in the rules that would ban doing it; but it not actually achieving the aim of the step in the nose is probably why we'd not see it.

That's ok, I kind of assumed that the monocoque had to be the solid object itself, and anything else would have to go 'on top' of that.

I've noticed the continuing trend of raising the front to get air under the car, but can a Brawn-esque low nose still work alongside these 'things'?

[lotus7]

Something similar to the Lotus 25 windscreen but further forward and out cf and unitary to monocoque, maybe ?

[beelsebob]

That's ok, I kind of assumed that the monocoque had to be the solid object itself, and anything else would have to go 'on top' of that.

I've noticed the continuing trend of raising the front to get air under the car, but can a Brawn-esque low nose still work alongside these 'things'?

Yep, I'd fully expect McLaren to continue with their low nose concept, which they don't have to compromise to fit the new rules.

[danardif1]

Something similar to the Lotus 25 windscreen but further forward and out cf and unitary to monocoque, maybe ?

That's what I was thinking, but would then split off to another part of the car, kind of like the the airbox and the hole at the back?

[danardif1]

That's ok, I kind of assumed that the monocoque had to be the solid object itself, and anything else would have to go 'on top' of that.

I've noticed the continuing trend of raising the front to get air under the car, but can a Brawn-esque low nose still work alongside these 'things'?

Yep, I'd fully expect McLaren to continue with their low nose concept, which they don't have to compromise to fit the new rules.

That's what I expect as well, they've made race winning cars with their own concept, plus I think they've kept an eye on driver visibility as well which is an issue for me in these high-chassis cars...

[Sobek]

Official caterham launch video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ycejyi2t4A

Nah, that's Mercedes W02.
Here's Caterham:
http://youtu.be/pbOOErC0tTA

[avatar]

sorry. (well, someone had to do it!)

[andartop]

Revealed: how caterham came up with the CT-01 design!

http://truckaccidentattorneysnow.org/re ... atal-crash

[avatar]

a more serious note from a TV perspective; sticking a camera right between the eyes would make a great shot for the coverage.

[JMN]

This car is now known as the Berlingo

[kilcoo316]

Hmmmm.

Two questions.


1. Does the two mount pylons for the front wing have to be parallel? (I haven't looked at the front wing regs in a while, I know the centre section of the main plane must be zero cambered and there must not be a second or third plane - but I don't know if the rules extend to the pylons.

2. How far back does the maximum height restriction on the nose extend?

[aral]

Revealed: how caterham came up with the CT-01 design!

http://truckaccidentattorneysnow.org/re ... atal-crash

Not nice making fun of a fatal accident!

[Isak]

High res versions. Right click -> show image to get them in fullsize.

[beelsebob]

Now that we can see the rear of the car more clearly, it becomes obvious that what looks like the pull rod is something very interesting there – it travels in front of the front part of the lower wishbone. What's going on there?

The drive shaft is now much clearer as travelling just above the lower wish bone in a position that would be obscured by the beam wing from the rear shot.