- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Sure.bernard wrote: well that's nice, but could you be a little more precise?
Charlie Whiting wrote: 15.4.3 An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell. This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it.
Furthermore, it must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point.
15.5.1 The survival cell and frontal absorbing structure must pass an impact test against a solid vertical barrier placed at right angles to the centre line of the car, details of the test procedure may be found in Article 16.2.
16.2 Frontal test :
All parts which could materially affect the outcome of the test must be fitted to the test structure which must be solidly fixed to the trolley through its engine mounting points but not in such a way as to increase its impact resistance.
[...]
This test must be carried out on the survival cell subjected to the higher loads in the tests described in Articles 18.2-4, and on the frontal impact absorbing structure identical to the one which was subjected to the test described in Article 18.5.
18.1.1 The tests described in Articles 18.2, 18.3, 18.4 and 18.5 must be carried out on the survival cell which will be subjected to the impact tests described in Article 16.
18.1.9 Any significant modification introduced into any of the structures tested shall require that part to pass a further test.
18.5 Nose push off test :
During the test the survival cell must be resting on a flat plate and secured to it solidly but not in a way that could increase the strength of the attachments being tested.
A constant transversal horizontal load of 40.0kN must then be applied to one side of the impact absorbing structure, using a pad identical to the ones used in the lateral tests in Article 18.2.1, at a point 550mm from the front wheel axis.
The centre of area of the pad must pass through the plane mentioned above and the mid point of the height of the structure at the relevant section. After 30 seconds of application, there must be no failure of the structure or of any attachment between the structure and the survival cell.
I’m not fighting, I’m just answering the questions in the most polite way I’m able tosharkie17 wrote: can we just keep the fight between French and Italians in one thread
I can't remember that they would have said anything when they tested mp4-19b, only later on Newey said they had passed the tests. So they propably don't give any information to the press?Does FIA have to announce when teams are submitting chassis or nose cone for testing?
How about they had just got the parts finished, and they had planned the FIA crashtest after the tests?if it failed a crash test then it wouldn't have tested what would be the point in testing a piece that couldn't be used!
McLaren brought aero changes -bar the nose- to Hockenheim. Though hard to see, these included new turning-vanes & bargeboards.bernard wrote:Thanks.
So could it be that they failed the tests, because Dennis was talking about them bringing a major aerodynamic upgrade to Hockenheim, one that would be bigger than any of their competitor's ones, and yet they hadn't got any visible major changes to their aerodynamics.
So maybe they were indeed planning to bring it to hockenheim, but then failed the tests? This could mean that they won't bring it to the track in the near future, as they would have to redesign the nose and then make the new noses, and then take the tests, and then possibly test it, and that can take some time.
I would love to see it in Hungary, though.
This is ooold news. Wasn't it said it was a traditional nose? Maybe something that would take on where they left last season?I've just read this on the Williams website...Seems like Williams are dropping their innovative nose design for something a little more conservative, but maybe more efficient. Anyone have any more info?
where in the article did it say Ferrari style nose cone?bernard wrote:This is ooold news. Wasn't it said it was a traditional nose? Maybe something that would take on where they left last season?I've just read this on the Williams website...Seems like Williams are dropping their innovative nose design for something a little more conservative, but maybe more efficient. Anyone have any more info?
Oh, and of course there had to be the line in the article that I read some while ago... "A ferrari style nosecone.." It now seems that a normal nose is now ferrari's invention, as this was said about mclaren's new nose too, and the only resemblance that has to the ferrari is that it's a nosecone.
