2014 Design

[Blackout]

You mean the 4 cylinder I guess... Few people have infos about it. Gurney flaps has some pics
The ''FERRARI 4 Cyl turbo 83-84, never raced'' at the bottom of this page:
http://www.gurneyflap.com/ferrariengines.html

[Holm86]

If tyre size is not defined, on what basis are the teams designing their 2014 car? Has FIA defined the sizes?

I'm pretty sure the tire regulations for 2014 is the same as in 2013. So the size is at this moment the same. But Pirelli or whoever gets the contract could end up asking for wider rears because of the change en power delivery.

[Blanchimont]

The 2013 and 2014 regulations are identical regarding the tyre width, but do not specify the exact width.
Pirelli is free to design a wider tyre within the given tyre width range, as long as they submit the final design until September.

1.5 Wheel :
Flange and rim.

1.6 Complete wheel :
Wheel and inflated tyre. The complete wheel is considered part of the suspension system.

12.4.1
Complete wheel width must lie between 305mm and 355mm when fitted to the front of the car and between 365mm and 380mm when fitted to the rear.

12.6.3
Tyre specifications will be determined by the FIA no later than 1 September of the previous season. Once determined in this way, the specification of the tyres will not be changed during the Championship season without the agreement of all competing teams.
Notwithstanding the above, the FIA may decide to change the specification during the Championship season for safety reasons without notice or delay.

[horse]

Has anyone considered that the rear suspension may become a surrogate for the beam wing?

If you made a very large section suspension component and placed it as far rearward as legally possible, you might get some benefits for the diffuser.

[Huntresa]

Has anyone considered that the rear suspension may become a surrogate for the beam wing?

If you made a very large section suspension component and placed it as far rearward as legally possible, you might get some benefits for the diffuser.

Isnt it mandated in the rule that you cant make large suspension parts as in the limit is what we have now ?

[Saribro]

Size, shape and angle are indeed fairly limited by the regulations. I doubt any teams have left much available.

[turbof1]

Size, shape and angle are indeed fairly limited by the regulations. I doubt any teams have left much available.

Teams nowadays use a big airofoil, as big as the beam wing, to cover the driveshaft. They could play with that, though as you mentioned the angle and shape is still limited.

[Holm86]

I cant see what there is to play with?? The airfoil can only be symmetrical. So you cant get downforce from Bernoulli effect. And the angle is also regulated so you cant gain anything from Newtonian effect. They are only there to shed some drag and I don't see how you could produce any significant amount of downforce from them.

[wesley123]

I believe that rule only counts for the suspension arms. So while the suspension arms have to be symmetrical this cover doesnt need to be. I'm not 100% sure of this though

[Blanchimont]

This is what the regulations say. 100mm as a maximum dimension, thickness is limited, symmetry is demanded and the angle is fixed at a maximum of 5 degrees.

10.3 Suspension members :

10.3.1
With the exception of minimal local changes of section for the passage of hydraulic brake lines, electrical wiring and wheel tethers or the attachment of flexures, rod ends and spherical bearings, the cross-sections of each member of every suspension component, when taken normal to a straight line between the inner and outer attachment points, must :

a) Intersect the straight line between the inner and outer attachment points.
b) Have a major axis no greater than 100mm.
c) Have an aspect ratio no greater than 3.5:1.
d) Have no dimension which exceeds 100mm.

The major axis will be defined as the largest axis of symmetry of any such cross-section. The length of the intersection of this axis with the cross-section must not be less than 95% of the maximum dimension of the section.

10.3.3
No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, when assessed in accordance with Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when projected onto, and normal to, a vertical plane on the car centre line with the car set to the nominal design ride height.

[horse]

So, you could try to place some 100mm sections at a 5 degree negative angle, as far towards the diffuser as possible. I think the drive shaft cover is considered part of the rear suspension if this article is right:

Ferrari F138 - bodied driveshaft

The rules might allow you to put gurneys on the suspension, which could help with the restricted angle of attack.

symmetry is demanded

I'm not seeing the part that says the section need to be symmetrical.

[wesley123]

afaik the problem is that this drive shaft cover isnt a suspension member. There are arms in front and behind the driveshaft which are suspension members. The cover is merely a cover.

[turbof1]

The cover is actually counted as the suspension arms. Teams aren't allowed to use covers in the litteral sense. So they place the suspension arms on the same plane as the driveshaft, connect them and the driveshaft gets covered because "it happens to be there". This intepretation allows them to cover the driveshaft, but unfortunaly it also rules out the less restricted use of a cover by the rulebook. Though teams might find ways to get big gains out of it somehow. Gurney flaps might be allowed, and perhaps they could get it work with the diffuser or its ramp, extracting additional air.

So in short, its downforce generating use will be determined by how good it can assist the other bodywork.

[horse]

This symmetry thing is a bit odd. It's written explicitly in the current rule 10.3.1:

... - be nominally symmetrical about its major axis.

However, its not written like this, if at all, for 2014. Can anyone explain it to me?

[Blanchimont]

The 2014 § 10.3.1 contains: "...The major axis will be defined as the largest axis of symmetry of any such cross-section..."

To me this means that every single cross section has to contain an axis of symmetry, otherwise there would be no major axis and you couldn't define its length (max 100mm).