Mercedes AMG F1 W06

[Paul]

Yes, there is a mandated engine cover area when viewed from the side.

[AlainProst]

And do you know why this rule exist ?

[SiLo]

Previously brought in so that there was more area to display sponsors to give them more exposure. Kind of ironic when you look at the field now and the real lack of sponsors on many teams compared to 5-10 years ago.

[AlainProst]

Previously brought in so that there was more area to display sponsors to give them more exposure. Kind of ironic when you look at the field now and the real lack of sponsors on many teams compared to 5-10 years ago.

Yes, just have a look on sauber livery ! There is just "Banco de basil", oerlikon and Chelsea FC on the car !!!

[ParkerArt]

And do you know why this rule exist ?

I've heard it called as yaw stability and as a measure to prevent cars from tumbling if they go airborne. The FiA would like to keep open top F1 cars from from having a crash like Anthony Davidson in the 2012 24 Hours of Le Mans.

Though, it is mostly for ad marketing space because Ferrari GT cars can't attack F1 cars quite as easily as LMP cars.

[ringo]

And do you know why this rule exist ?

It has to do with lateral stability of the car during sidewinds. It has it's safety reasons. Transients also affect the stability as well during turning. So depending on how big the side area is, you will impact the sensitivity and stability of the car while it turns/rotates. There's actually a little calculation for it, used for aeroplane lateral surface area and the forces produced but i can't remember right now.

[timbo]

Previously brought in so that there was more area to display sponsors to give them more exposure. Kind of ironic when you look at the field now and the real lack of sponsors on many teams compared to 5-10 years ago.

Indeed. The rule has nothing to do with safety. It was introduced in 2004, and there was a tendency for shrinkage of airbox side area, just compare side views of 2003 cars with 2004 cars. For 2005 endplate mandatory area was also increased.

[SiLo]

Previously brought in so that there was more area to display sponsors to give them more exposure. Kind of ironic when you look at the field now and the real lack of sponsors on many teams compared to 5-10 years ago.

Yes, just have a look on sauber livery ! There is just "Banco de basil", oerlikon and Chelsea FC on the car !!!

Even Ferrari and Mercedes have a lot less that some of the mid-field teams from back in the 00's.

Indeed. The rule has nothing to do with safety. It was introduced in 2004, and there was a tendency for shrinkage of airbox side area, just compare side views of 2003 cars with 2004 cars. For 2005 endplate mandatory area was also increased.

Yup, specifically the Ferrari from that year, I remember the airbox and engine cover being very slim.

[AlainProst]

Ok That's right !

[ringo]

Previously brought in so that there was more area to display sponsors to give them more exposure. Kind of ironic when you look at the field now and the real lack of sponsors on many teams compared to 5-10 years ago.

Indeed. The rule has nothing to do with safety. It was introduced in 2004, and there was a tendency for shrinkage of airbox side area, just compare side views of 2003 cars with 2004 cars. For 2005 endplate mandatory area was also increased.

Regardless if it was not founded on safety, I am telling what the effect of the side area. A similar thing can be said of LMP1 cars having the tail fin. I don't think you can explicitly claim it as being for sponsorship. That's even more baseless unless you can come up with some regulation or quote stating that. You should say rather, that that's your opinion.

[timbo]

Regardless if it was not founded on safety, I am telling what the effect of the side area. A similar thing can be said of LMP1 cars having the tail fin. I don't think you can explicitly claim it as being for sponsorship. That's even more baseless unless you can come up with some regulation or quote stating that. You should say rather, that that's your opinion.

Except, it's not my opinion. I clearly remember discussions from that time. Also, wiki agrees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ainability
f1technical also:
http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/884/toyota-tf104
Yes, it might have implications on stability but it's not the main drive behind regulations

LMPs are different animals, as with closed wheels they generate much more lift when moving sideways, and shark fins aim to maximize drag in that position and prevent cars from getting airborne.

[Just_a_fan]

I remember the minimum fin area coming in too. And I remember it being done to keep sponsors happy.

[NoDivergence]

Ahhh, I see, so LMP1 cars have huge fins for advertising space, I see. Oh wait

[wesley123]

Ahhh, I see, so LMP1 cars have huge fins for advertising space, I see. Oh wait

F1 cars don't have the issues an LMP has.

[SiLo]

I don't see why there is discussion on this subject, it was widely reported as being done for sponsors, and I'm pretty sure it was all over TV at the beginning of the 2005 season as well. Case closed.

Back to the car though, what will be the impending changes to the nose? I find their solution very elegant (again) and I can only assume the nose will either get smaller somehow, or will get shorter.