Formula E

[dmjunqueira]

This nose cone is very bulky...Maybe they are planning to stick a motor in there to make it 4WD in the future?

[bill shoe]

There may be some method to the madness (madness = unconventional rear end and rear winglet placement).

Several years ago FIA president Max Mosley was a fan of a concept where the rear wing was split into two halves and moved outboard behind the rear wheels. This meant air going over the center of the car would not be disturbed by the rear wing. CFD showed this made the airflow much better for a following car. Sounds perfect for the close racing in Formula E.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=acti ... a7Q9UUQREM

[jjn9128]

This nose cone is very bulky...Maybe they are planning to stick a motor in there to make it 4WD in the future?

From the video they put up the chassis itself is traditionally shaped, but there's a thin non-structural panel which makes the front bodywork trapezoid shaped, wider at the top than the bottom. So I don't think there is any more space for a front motor than now.

Several years ago FIA president Max Mosley was a fan of a concept where the rear wing was split into two halves and moved outboard behind the rear wheels. This meant air going over the center of the car would not be disturbed by the rear wing. CFD showed this made the airflow much better for a following car. Sounds perfect for the close racing in Formula E.

My recollection was that the CDG didn't do what it promised to do. I think this split wing is more about dealing with the rear wheel wakes in lieu of the rear pods. They've not given any aero numbers, but I reckon this car will have a bit more downforce than the current model, which is ~1/4 to 1/3 of an F1 car, but with much higher efficiency because of the covered wheels. More downforce may be bad for racing, but higher efficiency will be better, so it should at least balance.

Also, how do the drivers get in/out of the car?? The gap they have to jump, plus the height of the halo, is huge. Over half a meter forward and 0.6-07m vertical, surely that's not possible with 1 foot on the floor and 1 foot on the seat?!

[mzso]

OMG the rear is so UGLY

http://a1.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2 ... quality=40
http://a1.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2 ... quality=40

Looks are friggin irrelevant in a racing series.

[mzso]

There may be some method to the madness (madness = unconventional rear end and rear winglet placement).

Several years ago FIA president Max Mosley was a fan of a concept where the rear wing was split into two halves and moved outboard behind the rear wheels. This meant air going over the center of the car would not be disturbed by the rear wing. CFD showed this made the airflow much better for a following car. Sounds perfect for the close racing in Formula E.

Well, at least it's something. But I think a wing-car, closed-wheel formula would be even better.

Something like a combination of these:

[Just_a_fan]

OMG the rear is so UGLY

I must admit I'm not a fan of the 'rear wing'. Seems to be form over function to me - I personally think motorsport should be performance driven. I think the diffuser is lifted straight from the GP2/F2 car?!

You forget one important thing - Formula E is a spec series. The fact that there may be some form over function doesn't matter because everyone gets the same performance from the bodywork.

In a prototype formula like F1, function will always trump form.

[enry86]

Something like a combination of these:
http://www.moteurnature.com/zvisu/2012/ ... V-P002.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d6/5b/13 ... 4a36b9.jpg

And this:

[mzso]

Something like a combination of these:
http://www.moteurnature.com/zvisu/2012/ ... V-P002.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d6/5b/13 ... 4a36b9.jpg

And this:
http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/no ... f-23_1.jpg

Meaning?

[enry86]

Meaning?

Sorry, my fault, I quoted your post by mistake.

Anway the shape of the new car remembered me the YF-23. That's why I posted the image

[roon]

Lights on the halo:

[chapmanlung]

I actually really like the design, something different and a logical evolution from the previous generation.
But I do have a concern about the cockpit exit. For a driver getting out (regardless of the situation) they first have to climb out through the halo and then climb into the car. there seems to be a reasonable bit of bodywork in between the cockpit and the driver touching the ground.
In a stationary state, it would be easy for the driver to get in and out. but in an emergency like a crash, would it be dangerous for drivers to get out without the risk of stumbling?

[roon]

What's interesting to me here is that when you drop the rabid pursuit of aero, CoG, and vehicle weight, via the formula, there is freedom to develop aesthetics. This is the 3D equivalent of livery.

Think of the fun other series get to have in this regard, Tifosi lights and all:

...I do have a concern about the cockpit exit. For a driver getting out (regardless of the situation) they first have to climb out through the halo and then climb into the car. there seems to be a reasonable bit of bodywork in between the cockpit and the driver touching the ground.
In a stationary state, it would be easy for the driver to get in and out. but in an emergency like a crash, would it be dangerous for drivers to get out without the risk of stumbling?

FIA policy is to revert upended cars. Then extract the driver. There was a press conference about the halo a while back, wherein FIA officials expressed this.

[djos]

Hmmm, aside from the stupid looking halo, I dont mind it. I might even start watching FE now.

[Tim.Wright]

There's something about styled surfaces on racars that makes me vomit a bit in my mouth.

[mzso]

there is freedom to develop aesthetics. This is the 3D equivalent of livery.

Think of the fun other series get to have in this regard, Tifosi lights and all:

Ugh. More superficial crap is one thing I don't miss in formula E (and 1).

People are whining about to much superficial, insignificant stuff. Halo, lack of noise and such.