2014 Design

[turbof1]

Very simple: the nose tip has to be low enough, but if you could place it assymetrically, you could shape it as the right/left FW pillar; the vanity panel could then fill in the opposite pillar. That way you simulate almost perfectly, within dimensional boundaries set by rules, pre-2014 high nose, as looking from the side the nose would still drop in a continual line.

Okay now I get it. But 1, I don't think the asymmetric design is allowed and 2, the nose cant be attached to the front wing. It has to be connected with 2 pylons.

IF the assymetric design is allowed (I checked the rules quickly but didn't found anything specifically forbidding it on first look), then pylons aren't a problem. You just place the assymetrical nose tip at 185mm high, extent one pillar from the nose tip and either extend the other pillar from the opposite, much higher, end of the nose, or first use a vanity panel and from there extend a pillar.

Hell, go crazy from the assymetric nose tip, extend 1 pillar with a paper slot in it so it is reglementary 2 pylons and use the vanity panel as shown in the picture to cover up the other side.

It's of course a big IF.

[idfx]

Fernando Alonso & Audi R8 E-Tron
I found this video Fernando Alonso and Andrea Stella "admiring" Audi.
And the official website of Audi found this image of the details of the wheels audi R8 e-tron.
This idea can be adapted in the 2014 regulation ?
It is innovative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvcH8vs01rk
http://fourtitude.com/wp-content/upload ... on-435.jpg

The Audi R8 e-tron is fitted with size 225/35 and 275/35 tires with optimized rolling resistance. From about 50 km/h (31.07 mph), adjustable flaps close the apertures in the 19-inch wheels by centrifugal force; at low speeds they open again. The active aerodynamic wheels trim about 0.02 off the cD value. Site: fourtitude.com

http://fourtitude.com/news/Audi_News_1/ ... r8-e-tron/

Thanks

Remember 2012 when Red Bull ducted air through the front axle and through the front rims? It was banned because it was considered a movable aerodynamic device. So I'd say if it has a aerodynamic effect on the car, it cannot move by any means. So this wheel would not be legal.
Also, I don't know the exact rule that banned the wheel covers teams used in 2009, but that may prevent this design too.

It was the same impression I thought.
I think this idea will be applied to keep the temperature in the brakes according to the 2014 regulation changes will have the brakes

[theWPTformula]

Hell, go crazy from the assymetric nose tip, extend 1 pillar with a paper slot in it so it is reglementary 2 pylons and use the vanity panel as shown in the picture to cover up the other side.

It's of course a big IF.

Unfortunately there must be a pillar on each side of the centreline of the car in the Y250 region so no paper slots I'm afraid!

[JRodrigues]

Fernando Alonso & Audi R8 E-Tron
I found this video Fernando Alonso and Andrea Stella "admiring" Audi.
And the official website of Audi found this image of the details of the wheels audi R8 e-tron.
This idea can be adapted in the 2014 regulation ?
It is innovative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvcH8vs01rk
http://fourtitude.com/wp-content/upload ... on-435.jpg

The Audi R8 e-tron is fitted with size 225/35 and 275/35 tires with optimized rolling resistance. From about 50 km/h (31.07 mph), adjustable flaps close the apertures in the 19-inch wheels by centrifugal force; at low speeds they open again. The active aerodynamic wheels trim about 0.02 off the cD value. Site: fourtitude.com

http://fourtitude.com/news/Audi_News_1/ ... r8-e-tron/

Thanks

R8 =/= R18

[Blanchimont]

Hell, go crazy from the assymetric nose tip, extend 1 pillar with a paper slot in it so it is reglementary 2 pylons and use the vanity panel as shown in the picture to cover up the other side.

It's of course a big IF.

Unfortunately there must be a pillar on each side of the centreline of the car in the Y250 region so no paper slots I'm afraid!

3.7.2
Any horizontal section taken through bodywork located forward of a point lying 450mm forward of the front wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line, and between 125mm and 135mm above the reference plane, may only contain two closed symmetrical sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm2. The thickness of each section may not exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line.
Once fully defined, the sections at 125mm above the reference plane must be projected vertically to join the profile required by Article 3.7.3. A radius no greater than 10mm may be used where these sections join.

The article says that the sections have to be symmetrical, but it doesn't say they have to be symmetrical about the car center line.
What article number is your conclusion based on?

[wesley123]

The way I see it, they have to be symmetrical from each other. It clearly talks about two symmetrical sections. The only way to have those is to mirror it from the cars centerline.

If the article said "may only contain two closed sections with a symmetrical profile", then it would be open for debate whether the left and right pillar could be different from each other.

[turbof1]

The way I see it, they have to be symmetrical from each other. It clearly talks about two symmetrical sections. The only way to have those is to mirror it from the cars centerline.

If the article said "may only contain two closed sections with a symmetrical profile", then it would be open for debate whether the left and right pillar could be different from each other.

As long as there is room for interpretation, you could get away with it.

[wesley123]

The way I read it, there isn't one and it is too far fetched. But that is where the interpretation is; someone else might read it differently.

Symmetry can be achieved in more than one way, so the rule seems to be vague on that. What about symmetry over the Z-axle(that is height, right?) You'll still be able to achieve both the symmetry plus the two closed sections.

[theWPTformula]

@ Blanchimont

I was going to say that my conclusion was based off that article but now I've read it multiple times I can see how you have interpreted it. Very strange how it doesn't mention that the pillars must be symmetrical around the car centreline.

Regarding the idea as a whole, could you please produce a side view drawing of it? I think I can see what you're trying to achieve but I like to visualise things.

I think what you have to consider is whether an asymmetric + high nose combination is better than a symmetrical + slightly compromised design. Symmetry is bound to be an important factor at the front of the car due to the vortices that it produces. If one side is different to the other then some of the wing's design is flawed, surely?

[idfx]

The way I read it, there isn't one and it is too far fetched. But that is where the interpretation is; someone else might read it differently.

Symmetry can be achieved in more than one way, so the rule seems to be vague on that. What about symmetry over the Z-axle(that is height, right?) You'll still be able to achieve both the symmetry plus the two closed sections.

Cool your idea.
On wikipedia definition of symmetry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometry
Reflectional symmetry, Point reflection and other involutive isometries, Rotational symmetry, Translational symmetry, Glide reflection symmetry, Rotoreflection symmetry, Helical symmetry, Non-isometric symmetries, Scale symmetry and fractals.

Possibilities

[turbof1]

@ Blanchimont

I was going to say that my conclusion was based off that article but now I've read it multiple times I can see how you have interpreted it. Very strange how it doesn't mention that the pillars must be symmetrical around the car centreline.

Regarding the idea as a whole, could you please produce a side view drawing of it? I think I can see what you're trying to achieve but I like to visualise things.

I think what you have to consider is whether an asymmetric + high nose combination is better than a symmetrical + slightly compromised design. Symmetry is bound to be an important factor at the front of the car due to the vortices that it produces. If one side is different to the other then some of the wing's design is flawed, surely?

Remember that the teams stil have a vanity panel to work with; they could mirror alot if not everything back to the other side.

I'll draw something on paper and scan it in later on.

EDIT:


Still a lot of room to adjust if it does not inmediately comply with the rules, but again the whole idea depends on whether or not the actual nose can be assymetrical. From there you might still run into issues with the crash tests, but you could turn the latter part of the nose into a pylon-like shape, end it at 185mm and from there extend a pylon. At the opposite of the car centerline you do exactly the same with the vanity panel (end at 185mm, extend a pylon from there). You also shape the top of the vanity panel this way that it erases any assymetrical shapes and that it forms a fake nose to redirect air underneath the front bulkhead.

It's a crazy idea yes, but amusingly I don't inmediately find anything in the rules that explicitly forbids this.

[turbof1]

3D view:

-Orange: Vanity Panel
-Pink: Actual Nose
-Small striped areas on top of FW: Pylons

[theWPTformula]

Nice drawings, now I see where the idea comes from.

The only problem I can see with this is that the rules state that the crash structure must be a at least 9000mm², so the artificial pylon(s) (if you want to put it that way) would have to be quite thick. As long as it finishes in line with the base of the chassis (525mm above the RP) then it seems legal!

Very odd how they put that it must have a single cross section in "horizontal projection".

Here's Article 15.4.3 for reference, anyway:

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.
No part of this structure may lie more than 525mm above the reference plane.
It must have a single external cross section, in horizontal projection, of more than 9000mm² at
a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. Furthermore :
a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 250mm or less than 135mm above the
reference plane.
b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference
plane and no less than 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line.

This is either a very good idea or we have missed something integral within the rules. I'll have a look at the vanity panel regulations.

No doubt this idea would be banned as it's only safe for one side of the car.

[Tim.Wright]

Doesn't the vanity panel have a specified (light) layup? I doubt it would be strong enough to pass the front wing deflection tests or even hold the front wing.

[theWPTformula]

Doesn't the vanity panel have a specified (light) layup? I doubt it would be strong enough to pass the front wing deflection tests or even hold the front wing.

Was just thinking the same thing. I doubt it would pass the crash tests anyway, even if the design is legal.