STR carbon ring

[manchild]

http://www.formula1.com/race/technical_ ... 3/321.html

As seen earlier in the year on the Toyota and Ferrari, in Hungary Toro Rosso introduced rim shields for their rear wheels. A carbon lip is applied to the outer face of the wheel with the aim of improving brake cooling, whilst at the same time providing a minor aerodynamic gain by cutting turbulence near the rear wing. As on the Ferrari, the shield extends inside the rim.

Now, remember my "ranting" in topic about Ferrari carbon ring months ago and tell me that formula1.com didn't actually say that carbon ring officially applied for brake cooling is movable aerodynamic device too? Mass damper is illegal without any contact with air stream and carbon ring is legal?!

[bhall]

I think that Ferrari and Toyota were probably stretching things as far as the FIA would allow. This ring that STR is using, which looks to cover the entire outside of the wheel, will probably result in any carbon rings on wheels being banned.

[Larnach]

I don't understand how it would benefit versus the shields that they had on the outside of the rotors (R10 style)?

Perhaps there is better fluid "capture" created by the wheel spinning allowing more air to be used for cooling...

Call me crazy.

[Saribro]

I believe Ferrari argued that the profile doesn't change, hence, it's not a movable device.
I'd definitly call it a borderline situation, not sure what to make of it really.

[mini696]

But if the profile changed it would be either 'flexible' or 'moveable' aero device. So of course Ferrari say it doesent change.

[Larnach]

I think the FIA could make the argument that this is indeed a movable device being that it rotates on a centerline... fixed or not.

I don't think it would flex in any way, even if it did I would think it would be less effective as the rotational forces would draw the lip inward and reduce the surface area contact with the air.

[joseff]

All aero devices must be rigidly fixed to the sprung part of the car. This means the legality of the rim hinges on it being a brake duct component.

If it's not really part of the braking system it should be illegal, constant profile or not.

edit: for those interested, an illustration of what a rotating body can do, even with a fixed profile. This one went all the way accross the Atlantic.

http://www.tecsoc.org/pubs/history/2002/may9.htm

[Steven]

An upclose pic I took was posted in the development blog here:
http://www.f1technical.net/development/12

(and for the record, I did so as early as the German GP)

[manchild]

I didn't mean to go into details but unless FIA isn't hypocrite mass damper can't be banned for aero reasons if this ring is allowed. Both of these gadgets have aero benefit as secondary but having in mind that mass damper has no contact at all with air flow than it can't be considered more illegal for anything else except as movable ballast (which suspension and dampers are too )

[pyry]

well, if it is banned then they could make in out of magnesium , thus being part of the rear rim.

http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/ ... 2386.shtml

i think they should free the rim rules anyway, rim development is pretty much transferable to civilian cars