Lotus E21 Renault

[tony77g]

In Yellow Raikkonen short wheelbase.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

GA's analysis of the modified turning in India


via AutoSport

[Blackout]

''Mclaren begun this trend''... nope, Lotus begun this trend in Melbourne 2012.

[turbof1]

Garry is on the loose again.

This is a better explanation:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... enerators/

[henra]

This is a better explanation:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... enerators/

+1
I was also a bit confused by the explanation given by GA. It didn't match to my understanding of these VG at all.
Now this one sounds much more realistic.

Edit: In all fairness to GA I think there is still an element of truth in his explanation. The agressive outward bent shape will also help to direct the airflow somewhat to the outside pointing to the exhausts which are quite on the outside of the sidepods and will also help to prevent it from being blown inward by the flow along the sides of the sidepods.
It all about aiming the airflow to the exhausts and kepp it attached to the upper side of the sidepods.

[turbof1]

This is a better explanation:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... enerators/

+1
I was also a bit confused by the explanation given by GA. It didn't match to my understanding of these VG at all.
Now this one sounds much more realistic.

Edit: In all fairness to GA I think there is still an element of truth in his explanation. The agressive outward bent shape will also help to direct the airflow somewhat to the outside pointing to the exhausts which are quite on the outside of the sidepods and will also help to prevent it from being blown inward by the flow along the sides of the sidepods.
It all about aiming the airflow to the exhausts and kepp it attached to the upper side of the sidepods.

Thanks, but in all fairness the article isn't mine. The above posted blog is made by the same member here, thewptformula. Greatly gifted kid; quality alike scarbs his pieces, and he makes tech updates every race.

I do like reading Garry's pieces too; sometimes he has an alternative view that really shines out in genius, but he is very often wrong. In this instance he puts all the emphasis on the lift reduction. While it might perhaps be true, that really is not why the teams installed thos VG's.

[henra]

In this instance he puts all the emphasis on the lift reduction. While it might perhaps be true, that really is not why the teams installed thos VG's.

Oh, that is probably even the part which is outright wrong.
Chances are the VG will even increase direct lift over the sidepods.
The only thing where he might be right is that they try to move the flow towards the outside of the sidepods, not just creating vortices.

[turbof1]

In this instance he puts all the emphasis on the lift reduction. While it might perhaps be true, that really is not why the teams installed thos VG's.

Oh, that is probably even the part which is outright wrong.
Chances are the VG will even increase direct lift over the sidepods.
The only thing where he might be right is that they try to move the flow towards the outside of the sidepods, not just creating vortices.

I was too careful on that; I was suspecting the same .

[Huntresa]

But as always GA is making it simple, cause its not wrong that they help with removing the lift effect from the sidepod at this point.

Also as noted it was Lotus who first did it, in 2012 Melbourne, but without running coanda, so they prob did it to just negate lift.

[iceman07]

hello,
may I ask what can the team do to avoid a floor deflection test failure in the future? and why they didn't do any needed modification since it damaged with Grojean before?

[turbof1]

hello,
may I ask what can the team do to avoid a floor deflection test failure in the future? and why they didn't do any needed modification since it damaged with Grojean before?

They can add carbon layering, within the boundaries layed down by the rules, to increase the resiliance. But that comes at the cost of extra weight, or perhaps even a big redesign of the floor, which is both costly and eats away performance, the reason probably why they left it as it was when it happened to Romain. They probably thought to get away with it again when it happened to Kimi.

[Ral]

hello,
may I ask what can the team do to avoid a floor deflection test failure in the future? and why they didn't do any needed modification since it damaged with Grojean before?

[snip] They probably thought to get away with it again when it happened to Kimi.

I had been wondering about this. Would it genuinely have been a case of "getting away with it" had Kimi not been penalized?

Lotus said the sensors said the impact had been 21G or something - whatever they said, it was substantially more than the deflection load tested for.

So what gives? Is there a regulation for what loads the bits should be able to withstand before it breaks, in addition to the deflection loads? Did the stewards just have a bad day, or did they seriously think all the other cars are ok to withstand that load and not break, or that Lotus should have thickened that strut enough to withstand that amount? Did they tell Lotus how high an impact would have satisfied them that Lotus had done enough to strengthen it? And how would they test for that?

It just seemed like a bitchy decision. "You've done this before, so we're going to punish you now. The fact that the occurrence is out of your power to influence or prepare for is neither here nor there".

[theWPTformula]

I think it was a bad decision. Why penalise the team for almost exactly the same infringement that went unpunished months ago. Again the stewards lack consistency.

Having said that, Lotus must have been aware that they might not get away with it next time so you could argue that they should've done something about it. All of the other cars appear to be able to handle the abuse.

Interestingly, both events have occurred on the short wheelbase E21 with the backward sweeping splitter stay.

[raymondu999]

[Blackout]

I think it was a bad decision. Why penalise the team for almost exactly the same infringement that went unpunished months ago. Again the stewards lack consistency.

Having said that, Lotus must have been aware that they might not get away with it next time so you could argue that they should've done something about it. All of the other cars appear to be able to handle the abuse.

Interestingly, both events have occurred on the short wheelbase E21 with the backward sweeping splitter stay.

But few cars go wide and hit the kerbs that are situated at turn 3 exit. We 'saw' three cars hit those Kerbs: Hamilton at the beginning of his first fast lap in Q3. He goes wide, the car bottoms and even jumps and, short time after that, one of his wishbones breaks. Brawn says one of the kerbs could be responsible for that. Brundle too.
Then Raikkonen hits the same kerbs and the telemtry says the tea tray endured a 25g shock. Boullier said the sensors stopped working after that because everything broke inside that tea tray.
Then Alonso did the same, endured 25g too and went to the Hospital.

Grosjean's floor endured 11g 'only' in Hungary...
Like Ral says it was a very bad decisions... and aero parts are not supposed to witstand that kind of shocks.