2014 Design

[Blackout]

Similar to the Hungary spec of the R30 RW?

[Holm86]

Similar to the Hungary spec of the R30 RW?
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2048/rwbelgium2f.jpg

Precisely Would it be possible within 2014 regs??

[OrangeArrows]

Similar to the Hungary spec of the R30 RW?
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2048/rwbelgium2f.jpg

Is it allowed in 2014 to strech the bodywork for more rear downforce? Just like this http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/wp-c ... 12x408.jpg

[OrangeArrows]

Is it allowed to strech the bodywork to the rear wing for more rear downforce>Just like this http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/wp-c ... 12x408.jpg

[shelly]

If you run a small delta extension in the central 150mm you could use the two vortices for downforce like strakes

[turbof1]

If you run a small delta extension in the central 150mm you could use the two vortices for downforce like strakes

*central 200mm. It got extended.

[shelly]

I was looking at this image from @thewptformula on twitter;



representing 2011 mclaren swnowplough. I think it is a viable variation of the "bulbous bow" type - you'd have a protruding flat instead of a protruding bulb. Proven aerodynamic concept, but I am not sure it complies with the rules.

Maybe some cars will have a low wide and flat nose (like 2013 ferrari 340mm lower), with a convex tapered dome above it. have not seen any sketch of this type of nose around, it would look like a mp 4-22 nose (or the grey example above) with wide chimes at the bottom

[ringo]

The Ferrari one may be legal if the bow nose forms a single section with the upper nose. Two nose supports are allowed to support the front wing as far as I'm aware. Is there a rule dictating the mounting points of the wing supports? If not could this be a legitimate get around? (as already suggested by Gary Anderson).

ferrari design is not legal. No body work should be above a diagonal line that goes from 650mm from section AA to 300mm 50mm behind the furthest point.
Which is saying that the nose must slant downwards regardless of the design.

[Holm86]

I was looking at this image from @thewptformula on twitter;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeDXWXrCUAA5mmy.jpg

representing 2011 mclaren swnowplough. I think it is a viable variation of the "bulbous bow" type - you'd have a protruding flat instead of a protruding bulb. Proven aerodynamic concept, but I am not sure it complies with the rules.

Maybe some cars will have a low wide and flat nose (like 2013 ferrari 340mm lower), with a convex tapered dome above it. have not seen any sketch of this type of nose around, it would look like a mp 4-22 nose (or the grey example above) with wide chimes at the bottom

You mean something like this from page 71 :
http://s536.photobucket.com/user/Mitsur ... 8380919795

[shelly]

Yes the "snowplough" I had in mind is like this - thank you for finding it, I had not looked well enough.

The other idea ("chimes") is a bit different in that the flat crashstructure has the pillars mounted on in it and forms the continuous section together with a shape like the mp4-22 nose

[Holm86]

Yes the "snowplough" I had in mind is like this - thank you for finding it, I had not looked well enough.

The other idea ("chimes") is a bit different in that the flat crashstructure has the pillars mounted on in it and forms the continuous section together with a shape like the mp4-22 nose

Yes i just remembered seeing this. I also think scarbs or someone else made a sketch of a snowplough type 2014 nose. Just cant find that one.

**found it

[wuzak]

Yes the "snowplough" I had in mind is like this - thank you for finding it, I had not looked well enough.

The other idea ("chimes") is a bit different in that the flat crashstructure has the pillars mounted on in it and forms the continuous section together with a shape like the mp4-22 nose

Yes i just remembered seeing this. I also think scarbs or someone else made a sketch of a snowplough type 2014 nose. Just cant find that one.

**found it

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbXZSzGCIAApH3r.jpg:large

Surely that doesn't comply with the regs?

[Thunder]

afaik it was drawn by Scarbs so it think it would be legal.

[FW17]

Surely that doesn't comply with the regs?

I guess you say it does not comply with regard to 3.7.8, but is this new? and does it apply to non structural elements such as turning vanes, vanity panels, snow plows etc.?

[Holm86]

afaik it was drawn by Scarbs so it think it would be legal.

It was Scarbs yes.