Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 083&type=1
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
With the track debut of the new V6 turbo engines coming closer and closer, teams are admitting that one of the major challenges of getting and efficient and reliable package will be managing the cooling systems.
Yeah that's the joke of this year. Can't stop laughing.Holm86 wrote:That one is awsomegrams wrote:The team liveries should let everyone know who's responsible for the new noses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/115345194@N04/12114038564/http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7426/1211 ... e004f5.jpg
These noses look awful! Maybe FIA should make a design for all the teams just for 2014 to avoid all this (really not the best idea! Everyone will have the same nose but...)! And then new nose rules for 2015!I'm not sure if it complies with article 21.3 of the sporting regulations
Like the Mclaren or Lotus, but more like this http://i57.servimg.com/u/f57/14/79/55/26/prjct_14.jpgBlackout wrote:Because the beam wing is gone, maybe teams won't bother design higher and a bit bigger rear cooling outlets? would it be interesting to raise the top rear end of a flat outlet, like some of the ground effect f1 cars, in order to aid the airflow that passes under the RW? what pressure level would the hot air underneath that bodywork have? would that layout generate DF? or help extracting the hot air better ?
/similar to this
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526
Is that the case here? Are both noses adding to the 9000m²? Or does the longer nose has to be 9000m² and as consequence for symmetry the shorter one too?
There's a certain regulatory box 50mm behind the nose tip. It needs to have a projected surface of 9000mm² at that point and inbetween 135mm and 250mm above the reference plane. This will leave you with a 78.26mm (thanks Somers for the calculations) wide nose at that point.
...
I'm just going to note here that splitting the structural nose in 2 normally isn't allowed, but IF Lotus did found a way to circumvent that and can legally explain a splitted nose, both sides can be 39,13mm.
i agree.Blackout wrote:I dont fully understand you... to me, it's very prossible that the longer finger we see, has a 115x78 section, 50mm behind its tip http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_scratch.png
It's difficult to measure it, but what I gathered from scarbs is that the longer nose is 9000m².Blackout wrote:I dont fully understand you... to me, it's very prossible that the longer finger we see, has a 115x78 section, 50mm behind its tip http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_scratch.png
Exactlyturbof1 wrote:It's difficult to measure it, but what I gathered from scarbs is that the longer nose is 9000m².Blackout wrote:I dont fully understand you... to me, it's very prossible that the longer finger we see, has a 115x78 section, 50mm behind its tip http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_scratch.png
@Aleks: no you don't need to call it a FW pylon. It's just crash structure of the nose.
Just to be clear: the shorter nose isn't there to meet the technical rules. Remove it and the car is still perfectly legal. The short nose is there instead for both getting through the crash tests and to keep symmetrical airflow structures and symmetrical vortices. The tricky part is to get the short nose within the framebox of the rules. I can't believe this didn't end with a technical directive.
IMO, if you are able to push the rules this hard and still get through it, I'd stick a small vanity panel on the shorter nose to make it equal in length. If you can take such a long walk with the regulations, then you should be able to do that as well.
My original question was if they were allowed to split the required 9000m² over both noses. The reason behind this is that if you can, you can have thinner noses which doesn't block the airflow as much.
