jordangp wrote:Article 3.12.4n smikle wrote:But You can't see that part!beelsebob wrote:
No, the transition between the two is on neither plane, and doesn't have the mandated 25mm/50mm curvature as mandated by the rule Intego quoted.
which rule intego quoted? In this thread?... I don't think it will apply to this..but if you can direct me to it. or tell me the rule number I will look at it.
Just out of interest - not directly related.. but look at these two.. the transition lies not on the step plane nor regference plane.. I think this is the free 50mm from the edge.. but still my design is all "flat" when viewed form below.
Still legal to my understanding. As you can see..that scoop is not a boundary and it is hidden from view from below.The boundaries of the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes may be curved upwards with
maximum radii of 25mm and 50mm respectively. Where the vertical transition meets the surfaces on the
step plane a radius, no greater than 25mm, is permitted.
Ok then I will try another design..haha.3.12.2 Additionally, the surface formed by all parts lying on the reference plane must :
- Cover the area which is bounded by two transversal lines, one 330mm behind the front
wheel centre line and the other on the rear wheel centre line, and two longitudinal lines
150mm either side of the car centre line.
neilbah wrote:you arent allowed any parts descending below the floor line.. regardless if you cant see thru the floor to any bodywork
To help overcome any possible manufacturing problems, and not to permit any design which
may contravene any part of these regulations, a horizontal tolerance of 3mm is permitted
when assessing whether a surface is visible from beneath the car. In addition to this, an
absolute vertical tolerance of +/β 3mm is permissible across the surfaces lying on the reference
and step planes between a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line and the rear
wheel centre line.
I think impervious may defeat you here3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.
I don't think Georgio Ascanelli is the kind of TD to let another designer(even Newey) throw wild ideas at HIS CAR(which is how Ascanelli seems to consider the STR cars now). I really believe the buck starts and stops with Ascanelli on the 2011-12 STRs.Robbobnob wrote:I wondered last year, with the obvious link with RB. is the STR a test bed for innovation that Prodromou or Newey feel has benefits in exploring?
Just a wild theory, but the STR6 definitely had pace to be exploited, proved by their strong showing at Spa
just my two cents
It's supposed to be on Monday, though I haven't seen any specific time. I figure 1pm, GMT ish? Similar to Red Bull?ringo wrote:when's the launch?
Intersting quote about "the vortex under the floor". What could Ascanelli be referring to?Crucial_Xtreme wrote:I believe Toro Rosso will definitely keep the twin floor for 2012. In an interview with AutoSport Ascanelli said he thought they(Toro Rosso) didn't get all of the performance out of the twin floor last year and quote "there is more to come". As well as saying
"I don't know if the other teams will take it. The vortex under the floor is very powerful and the elimination of the double decker diffuser [ahead of last year] made us hunt for areas to exploit."
I guess that was expected...NobleF1: Just spotted the Toro Rosso nose in the pitlane. It joins the stepped trend. Let's see the full car later on
Vortex under the floor?shelly wrote:What could Ascanelli be referring to?