It's not 75 degrees, it's a radius of curvature of 75mm. Also it must conform to a tangent continuous curve which I'm not going to bother explaining. The 75mm pretty much limits any flip-ups as a flip-up/fin/etcetera would require a much smaller radius of curvature (some of the components last year had a radius of under 10mm).
Well the rule is only described in relation to 3 areas which happen to form the sidepods. It is this rule that indeed prevents shark gills, flipups, chimneys etc.
It basically says that the body must be a continuous shape with not-to-sharp-curves.
Personally I think it's a very 'smart' rule, but I am still convinced that the 75mm is a little bit too much. 50mm or 25mm would have done. That would still have outlawed thin winglets while at the same time allow the sidepods' edges to be a little sharper.
In simple terms, this rule applies to an area between the rear wheel centre line and a line 450mm ahead of the back of the cockpit, whilst there can be bodywork 625mm ahead of it, thus there is an 175mm long area in front of the sidepods in which some teams chose to fit some furniture.
As of the undercut, the minimum radius rule applies only to bodywork higher than 100mm (remember that the widest points of the floor are already 50mm above the reference plane), so there is 50mm above the floor that can have sharp edges or apertures for cooling (BMW).
I'll add that the only exception is made for mirrors and their montings.
And the only apertures that can be made in that area are
- 1 on each side 'for the sole purpose of exhaust exits' (so no cooling through the same hole for TF109?)
- 'for the sole purpose of allowing suspension members and driveshafts to protrude through the bodywork'
I have to wonder why the rounded edges on the floor immediately in front of the sidepods then... Last year, they were stair stepped and this year, they have like a single nub.
maybe a different rule made that? I dunno. It seems like designing a 2009 F1 car is like trying to do magic tricks with your hands tied to your neck...
modbaraban wrote:I'll add that the only exception is made for mirrors and their montings.
And the only apertures that can be made in that area are
- 1 on each side 'for the sole purpose of exhaust exits' (so no cooling through the same hole for TF109?)
- 'for the sole purpose of allowing suspension members and driveshafts to protrude through the bodywork'
The reg quite noticeable no longer includes the word "sole" (as in sole purpose of exhaust exits)...
modbaraban wrote:I'll add that the only exception is made for mirrors and their montings.
And the only apertures that can be made in that area are
- 1 on each side 'for the sole purpose of exhaust exits' (so no cooling through the same hole for TF109?)
- 'for the sole purpose of allowing suspension members and driveshafts to protrude through the bodywork'
The reg quite noticeable no longer includes the word "sole" (as in sole purpose of exhaust exits)...
