Its not a hole tho since the lower part is the nosetip and thats where you arent allowed to have holes.beelsebob wrote:It's above the "nose" and below the nose. Though if you replaced the two front wing supports with a single central one (which would likely be better for air flow, that would get rid of the hole.Thunders wrote:I don't see a Hole there.
I can't seem to find the regulations about the usage of vanity panels in 2014, can someone help me out with finding the articles concerning this part of the car?Huntresa wrote:Its not a hole tho since the lower part is the nosetip and thats where you arent allowed to have holes.beelsebob wrote:It's above the "nose" and below the nose. Though if you replaced the two front wing supports with a single central one (which would likely be better for air flow, that would get rid of the hole.Thunders wrote:I don't see a Hole there.
If the bottom plow like part is not quite touching the wing pillars, i wouldn't class it as a hole.beelsebob wrote:It's above the "nose" and below the nose. Though if you replaced the two front wing supports with a single central one (which would likely be better for air flow, that would get rid of the hole.Thunders wrote:I don't see a Hole there.
Surely you would have difficulty with the minimum-radius rules if you tried to leave a paper-thin gap. Would it not have to be curved at the non-attached end?kalinka wrote:Also you can attach it to only one pylon, lefting only a paper thin gap on the other side. But it could be still illegal.
you wouldn't need to bother with that, just don't attach it at all.kalinka wrote:Also you can attach it to only one pylon, lefting only a paper thin gap on the other side. But it could be still illegal.
Yes, it's possible, but again, that lower structure has to be the impact structure which will be crash-tested, so you can't make it from some thin CF, and also it should comply with a 9000mm2 rule too. So it would look like you have two nosecones on top of another no ? So you have to make the "upper nose" from very thin CF to have minimal CG penalty...but I don't know if even this is possible within the regulations - also what are the benefits in this case ?astracrazy wrote:you wouldn't need to bother with that, just don't attach it at all.
It was only a quick drawing I amended to suit an Infiniti competition... Anyway the cross under tunnel even without the coanda exhaust is still relevant in isolating the airflow around the Sidepod and makes it so you can place it's flow wherever you like. Remember the successful ramp/tunnel was iteration number 3 and still got changed periodically there onwards to suit other changes. Not sure I see where the FW is wrong either but as I said it's only a diagram to support a competition.lio007 wrote:the RB10 could be look like this (by Matt Sommerfield)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TGSZWohUETo/U ... 0/RB10.jpg
You could easily avoid the problem with the hole by mounting the pylon on the lower structure. Since that is the crash test relevant structure anyway it would also structurally make sense. Combining this with the B-type nose might be an interesting approach since I'm not aware of a minimum height/maximum width of the 9000 mm^2 whereas there is a maximum height and thus minimum width.the EDGE wrote:Is that legal?
I thought there could not be a hole in the nose except for driver cooling
what I'm basically suggesting is to have a high nose from which a pylon which is part of the crash structure is mounted.the EDGE wrote:Yes that would do away with the hole however the teams are only allowed a thin vanity panel to smooth airflow
What you are suggesting is the whole top part is such, a thin vanity panel?
