Right across what air flow? The air flow remains tight to the side pod - that's how laminar flow behaves (well, you'd hope they have laminar flow there, if they have turbulent flow they'll be generating a *lot* of drag). The exhaust bulge pops it up and over the fast flow that they're trying to keep for the beam wing.tok-tokkie wrote:A huge amount of effort is put into getting the air to flow smoothly around the sidepods. Then similar effort is put into packaging the rear of the car so that air can flow over the diffuser and beam wing. The suggestion and debate about deflecting the exhaust right across that airflow makes me wonder about some of the discussion & those who post it.
I said:bgroovers wrote:your two arguments are totally opposite. Charlie has done with Lotus what you say he should have done with Brawn!
Same for Lotus' braking work - how much money down the toilet 'cos Charlie said "ye" then changed his mind and said "ne". It should have been a "ne" from the word go - or still be "ye".
amouzouris wrote:i actually said before that i think mclaren is trying to seal the diffuser by deflecting the exhaust plume...BUT on second thought i find it hard seeing how air moving from 180-300 kph could deflect the exhaust plume traveling at 600-700 kph at 90 degrees...also..last year the exhaust was far closer to the floor but we didnt see any kind of floor burning because of the use of heat shielding materials...so why wouldnt mclaren use heat shielding materials again which would both keep what they are doing a secret...so what we are seeing on the floor might actually be parts of the tire ripping apart and being thrown on the floor by the wheel turning... since they are probably blowing the brake duct fins and also blowing the edge of the tire ripping it apart...
i also had a look on the sauber solution which is very different i believe as they are trying to keep the plume attached to the bodywork...not deflect it by the airstream..
It's no different to RedBull's flexi front wing. It meets the letter of the rules but not the spirit i.e. it meets the dimensional/test requirements even though everyone can see it flexes excessively.Robbobnob wrote:n smikle wrote:I cant see how this solution can be "in the spirit of the rules"boyracer94 wrote:Burn marks on the floor in front of the rear wheels:
Is that exhaust hole legal? What do the rules say?
to me there is a clear attempt at improving the aero around the exhaust exit for some sort of benefit, which is clearly against the technical directive.
I agree to an extent, only as the flexing wings peeved me as much as anything else.Just_a_fan wrote: It's no different to RedBull's flexi front wing. It meets the letter of the rules but not the spirit i.e. it meets the dimensional/test requirements even though everyone can see it flexes excessively.
So what about the aero benefits of having dampers?Coefficient wrote:Renault however, appear to have attempted to mislead the FIA by deliberately neglecting to mention the aero benefits of the reactive ride system. This is both cynical and unwise because attempts to deceive the FIA are always met with disdain. A team that was building its 20th car should have known better.
But you have to prove it's designed that way. The team can say "we have this design because we don't want the exhaust plume damaging X because that would be really bad for safety" or some other argument.JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:I agree to an extent, only as the flexing wings peeved me as much as anything else.Just_a_fan wrote: It's no different to RedBull's flexi front wing. It meets the letter of the rules but not the spirit i.e. it meets the dimensional/test requirements even though everyone can see it flexes excessively.
But I understand there to be a caveat to the law.
If it transgresses the spirit of the the law(using energy from the exhaust in a designed way), it will be banned. I'll try source Whiting's quote on this....
Fact is all teams this year have designed their exhaust to use their energy.JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote: If it transgresses the spirit of the the law(using energy from the exhaust in a designed way), it will be banned. I'll try source Whiting's quote on this....
Nope, we definitely don't - although then again, we do have standardised sections of front wing and the engine weight and c.g.Just_a_fan wrote:But do we want such prescriptive rules?