Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[dumrick]

Article 15.5.2 refers to the cockpit side's crash structures and that article forces some sort of continuity in that structure, in that region that seems to be around the sidepod air intake. Probably prevents air for the sidepods to be channelled between crash structures.

I'm not quite sure what this means: When cut by a longitudinal vertical plane, the bodywork enclosing these impact structures must not form closed sections in the region between 450mm and 875mm forward

It implies that there are to be no closed structures in this region. Would barge boards be closed structures? In which case that means they are banned

The regulation refers to the bodywork enclosing the side crash structures. I figure is the area roughly below the "Denso" sticker on the sidepod of the Toyota.

[johnbeamer]

Yes I agree. And as the b-board isn't part of the impact protection structure it is excluded. It also implies that the sidepods can be brought forward but if so you can't place any fins or anything on them ...

[mariof1]

Just for reference, the cockpit entry template is 850mm long. So, 875mm is about 25mm ahead of the front edge of the cockpit opening. However, it is not the limit for sidepod's desing due to several rules that ban bodywork ahead of a line 625mm ahead of the rear edge of the cockpit entry template, drawing a maximum allowed area for bodywork. I might try a sketch of it soon.

[johnbeamer]

MarioF1 - that would be interesting to see. Here are my interpretations of the rules. All have been superimposed on a BMW F1.08 as the fundamental dimensions of the car do not change.



The think blue line is effective the start of the banned area for bodywork. My understanding is that you can have bodywork before this as per 3.11.1.

Rule 3.8.4 controls everything upto 450mm ahead of the cockpit entry template. There can be no apertures and fins here by that rule

Rule 3.8.6 is the one I referred to with regard to bodywork enclosing the impact absorbing structure. There can be no closed sections. Not quite sure exactly what this means but I am guessing it prevents bodywork from the sidepods extending and forming closed structure (pod fins etc.). This may also limit bargeboards as well - the bargeboards are attached to the bottom edge of the sidepod so you could argue that there is a closed structure there in a particular longitudonal plane.

Saying that you can attach the board differently I suspect.

The purple line is my view of how a bargebard may look.

[pgj]

MarioF1 - that would be interesting to see. Here are my interpretations of the rules. All have been superimposed on a BMW F1.08 as the fundamental dimensions of the car do not change.



The think blue line is effective the start of the banned area for bodywork. My understanding is that you can have bodywork before this as per 3.11.1.

Rule 3.8.4 controls everything upto 450mm ahead of the cockpit entry template. There can be no apertures and fins here by that rule

Rule 3.8.6 is the one I referred to with regard to bodywork enclosing the impact absorbing structure. There can be no closed sections. Not quite sure exactly what this means but I am guessing it prevents bodywork from the sidepods extending and forming closed structure (pod fins etc.). This may also limit bargeboards as well - the bargeboards are attached to the bottom edge of the sidepod so you could argue that there is a closed structure there in a particular longitudonal plane.

Saying that you can attach the board differently I suspect.

The purple line is my view of how a bargebard may look.

I have always understood that it had to be possible to inspect the survival shell for damage. Perhaps this means that the survival shell cannot be permanently enclosed.

[scarbs]

This is an extra volume specified for the sidepods. This related to the semi permanent part at the front of the sidepods, that also forms the undercut and sidepod inlet. The side imapct spars contained with in the sidepods need to be enlsoed and the two closed sections comments prevents teams running turning vanes in this area. This effectively spans the gap between the bargeboard exlusion zone and the three sidepod volumes.

However as this does specify two closed sections is does not enforce the single tangential line at 75mm Radius. Thus this portion of the sidepod could have pod wings and simpler vanes merged into the main shape...

[johnbeamer]

This is an extra volume specified for the sidepods. This related to the semi permanent part at the front of the sidepods, that also forms the undercut and sidepod inlet. The side imapct spars contained with in the sidepods need to be enlsoed and the two closed sections comments prevents teams running turning vanes in this area. This effectively spans the gap between the bargeboard exlusion zone and the three sidepod volumes.

However as this does specify two closed sections is does not enforce the single tangential line at 75mm Radius. Thus this portion of the sidepod could have pod wings and simpler vanes merged into the main shape...

Thanks for the clarification. Where in the regulations is this extra volume for the sidepods specified?

[johnbeamer]

Sorry, ignore my last post - it is regulation 3.8.6 obviously. The regulation says that the bodywork must NOT form closed sections in the regions

Does this effectively mean that the sidepods will extend 875mm from the rear edge of the cockpit entry template (as constrained by the region defined in 3.11.1)?

[Ogami musashi]

From the regulations, i understood the sidepods would run from the opening of the cockpit entry.

One question anyway, is that i understood nothing prevent teams from running low sidepods (except that you have to fulfill the 75mm radius), do you agree all?

[Scotracer]

From the regulations, i understood the sidepods would run from the opening of the cockpit entry.

One question anyway, is that i understood nothing prevent teams from running low sidepods (except that you have to fulfill the 75mm radius), do you agree all?

How low? I take it with the crash-structure they'd have a pretty high limit on what they could do?

[johnbeamer]

Ogami - I agree with you. There is nowhere that puts a limit on sidepods as long as the impact test is passed.

I am probably being a bit thick but when it says in 3.8.6 that:

When cut by a longitudinal vertical plane, the bodywork enclosing these impact structures must not form closed sections in the region between 450mm and 875mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit template.

Can someone give me an example of a closed section in this plane and also an open section.

In otherwords how do you define a closed and open section in this vertical plane? if someone could explain that would help tremendously.

[mariof1]

MarioF1 - that would be interesting to see. Here are my interpretations of the rules. All have been superimposed on a BMW F1.08 as the fundamental dimensions of the car do not change.



The think blue line is effective the start of the banned area for bodywork. My understanding is that you can have bodywork before this as per 3.11.1.

Rule 3.8.4 controls everything upto 450mm ahead of the cockpit entry template. There can be no apertures and fins here by that rule

Rule 3.8.6 is the one I referred to with regard to bodywork enclosing the impact absorbing structure. There can be no closed sections. Not quite sure exactly what this means but I am guessing it prevents bodywork from the sidepods extending and forming closed structure (pod fins etc.). This may also limit bargeboards as well - the bargeboards are attached to the bottom edge of the sidepod so you could argue that there is a closed structure there in a particular longitudonal plane.

Saying that you can attach the board differently I suspect.

The purple line is my view of how a bargebard may look.

It's very close to my understanding of the rules. However, the rear edge of the cockpit entry template is, in side view, a vertical line which is a continuation of the front edge of the airbox... or just remove the headrest and you'll get what I mean. If you check the drawings and rules, you'll see that the rear headrest is 90mm thick (maximum), so moving all the lines backward by 90mm will give you a more accurate sketch. Moreover, the 240mm line should be inclined towards the center line of the car by 4 degrees. Please check the regulations, I might be wrong.

[scarbs]

Theres no rule to specify sidepod height, Williams tried this in recent years but have reverted to higher sidepods.

The only issues I see would be:

1, Side impact tests which place loads at 300 above the reference plane

2, The sidepods would have to be wider, creating more obstruction to the flow over the topof the diffuser (the main aim recently)

[scarbs]

I was also considering the FIA's use of the term "tangent continuous curve" when relating the shape of the sidepod volumes.
I at first assumed this to be a single continous line, but thinking about it a bit deeper I beleive they are suggesting the curve cannot bend back in on itself.

Thus thick fip ups and deep undercuts would be illegal as the tangents off these surfaces would intersect other parts of the curve. This curve from Wikipedia would thus be illegal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tang ... _curve.svg

Has anyone a deeper understanding of the term "Tangent continuous curve"?

[Ogami musashi]

No actually i've understood the same, i searched for the the meaning of "continuous tangent curve" and found out it was exactly that, a curve with no overlapping tangents.