With the track debut of the new V6 turbo engines coming closer and closer, teams are admitting that one of the major challenges of getting and efficient and reliable package will be managing the cooling systems.
I think the gearboxes are already longitudinal as you can see in the picture below.astracrazy wrote:i read the gearboxes will need to be much longer because of the turbo above them
the cars are going to look quiet different i think, bit more bulkier
what about wheel base? slightly shorter? smaller fuel tank and smaller engine...
Reminds me of that.WhiteBlue wrote:Yep, low noses will surely come with nose centre 185 mm maximum above the reference plane. Combine that with a shorter engine, no beam wing, a big hump of the MGUH and turbo above the gearbox and bulkier radiators for the inter coolers plus a central exhaust pipe and you have a totally different aero config. Nothing will carry over.
WhiteBlue wrote:Yep, low noses will surely come with nose centre 185 mm maximum above the reference plane. Combine that with a shorter engine, no beam wing, a big hump of the MGUH and turbo above the gearbox and bulkier radiators for the inter coolers plus a central exhaust pipe and you have a totally different aero config. Nothing will carry over.
Ahh, that makes a lot more sense, hadn't dug that far down into the regs... that 185mm CoA dimension should really lower the noses, as the way I'm reading it, that covers the tip of the nose (a section from the tip, to a point 50mm back from the tip). So a bit more like this sketch.Blanchimont wrote:The 2014 nose sketch isn't correct as article 15.4.3 will also limit the nose height.
15.4.3
An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell. This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it. It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm² at apoint 50mm behind its forward-most point.
Furthermore :
a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 500mm above the reference plane.
b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference plane.
c) No part of this section may be more than 50mm below its centre of area.
TryHard wrote:
Well looking at how extreme most designers have been these couple of years with air under the nose Mclaren being the only exception i think most will go as high as possible which would be a long outdrawn nose like the reference design 3 posts above, even if Brawn style is so much more good looking.astracrazy wrote:no nose will be lower, like brawn style i think
Better sketch than the previous one, but the nose is still to high. Compare the nose height at the section 50 mm behind the tip (CoA 185mm +-50 mm) with the green box that shows the front wing area (75 to 275 mm in height). The nose should therefore not be higher than front wing end plates!TryHard wrote:Ahh, that makes a lot more sense, hadn't dug that far down into the regs... that 185mm CoA dimension should really lower the noses, as the way I'm reading it, that covers the tip of the nose (a section from the tip, to a point 50mm back from the tip). So a bit more like this sketch.
http://www.thard.co.uk/images/chassisconfig2.jpg
Maybe. IF what we are thinking is true, then ThinkTanks at Marussia are.. i don't know what to say.. FREAKS.RB7ate9 wrote:http://adamcooperf1.files.wordpress.com ... g_0953.jpgTryHard wrote: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7095/6915 ... c28f_z.jpg
Marussia already ahead of the game?
Third times a charm... have no idea what happened with that second one... sure I typed in 185, must have referenced to the wrong point!Blanchimont wrote:Better sketch than the previous one, but the nose is still to high. Compare the nose height at the section 50 mm behind the tip (CoA 185mm +-50 mm) with the green box that shows the front wing area (75 to 275 mm in height). The nose should therefore not be higher than front wing end plates!TryHard wrote:Ahh, that makes a lot more sense, hadn't dug that far down into the regs... that 185mm CoA dimension should really lower the noses, as the way I'm reading it, that covers the tip of the nose (a section from the tip, to a point 50mm back from the tip). So a bit more like this sketch.
http://www.thard.co.uk/images/chassisconfig2.jpg
Beautiful noseTryHard wrote:Third times a charm... have no idea what happened with that second one... sure I typed in 185, must have referenced to the wrong point!Blanchimont wrote:Better sketch than the previous one, but the nose is still to high. Compare the nose height at the section 50 mm behind the tip (CoA 185mm +-50 mm) with the green box that shows the front wing area (75 to 275 mm in height). The nose should therefore not be higher than front wing end plates!TryHard wrote:Ahh, that makes a lot more sense, hadn't dug that far down into the regs... that 185mm CoA dimension should really lower the noses, as the way I'm reading it, that covers the tip of the nose (a section from the tip, to a point 50mm back from the tip). So a bit more like this sketch.
http://www.thard.co.uk/images/chassisconfig2.jpg
http://www.thard.co.uk/images/chassisconfig3.jpg
I dont think you can get away with the minimum neutral part of the Front wing in the middle if you go with such a thin nose.turbof1 wrote:They might make the nose like the mp4-23: a very thin nose tip. That should allow airflow the flow past the nose to underneath the chassis.
can the survival cell be at max height unlike your picture where its angled down? sort of like the rb5 with a lower nose? wouldnt it be better pressure wise?TryHard wrote: Third times a charm... have no idea what happened with that second one... sure I typed in 185, must have referenced to the wrong point!
