Lotus E22 Renault

[Blackout]

But who's to say that the other teams don't have equally impressive numbers?

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 57#p486957

[henra]

Like Mercedes engine/ERS (or even the whole car - "exceeding expectations")? I heard plenty people talking about it but it's good to know that in fact it sucks. Interesting logic.

The difference is: The Nose is rather easy to copy. So if it was the magical bullett they would risk losing their advantage earlier than necessary by praising it.
Traditional strategy would have been sandbagging as long as possible. That contradict with the Need for PR to attract a potential big Sponsor.
It is rather safe to assume their search for a Sponsor is not completely unrelated to their praising of the design of the car.

I simply guess the nose is not the main Thing that makes the Lotus particularly quick (if it really is) but possibly something else. That way they could detract and still produce good PR for themselves without risking of giving away their secret.
You would have to be really stupid to point everyone directly to an easy to copy game changing feature.
My conclusion: The car may be very good but I doubt it will be mainly due to the nose.

[Manoah2u]

Like Mercedes engine/ERS (or even the whole car - "exceeding expectations")? I heard plenty people talking about it but it's good to know that in fact it sucks. Interesting logic.

The difference is: The Nose is rather easy to copy. So if it was the magical bullett they would risk losing their advantage earlier than necessary by praising it.
Traditional strategy would have been sandbagging as long as possible. That contradict with the Need for PR to attract a potential big Sponsor.
It is rather safe to assume their search for a Sponsor is not completely unrelated to their praising of the design of the car.

I simply guess the nose is not the main Thing that makes the Lotus particularly quick (if it really is) but possibly something else. That way they could detract and still produce good PR for themselves without risking of giving away their secret.
You would have to be really stupid to point everyone directly to an easy to copy game changing feature.
My conclusion: The car may be very good but I doubt it will be mainly due to the nose.

offcourse it won't be 'mainly' for the nose, it's always the package that does the deal.
they chose for this direction because they smell potential with it. mercedes, believe it or not, has a somewhat similar
solution. their vanity panel though reaches all the way to the front and it's less extreme, and the nose is very low.
in the end though, they have a similar approach in a 'double-nosed' solution.

but, the lotus nose, without doubt is not the final product we'll see in AUS. it's safe to assume that because of the tests, they'll now have actual real-life data versus simulator data, and probably will have more 'extreme' solutions worked out at the sim.

in any case, the nose really does have lots of benefits in stability and directing air, like a tunnel. it was mentioned before, but the lower area at the floor to the gearbox has some interesting designs. same goes for the exhaust/wing pillar mount solution.

surely, replacing the nose with a 'long john' version like toro rosso for example will completely destroy the entire philosophy of the e22. but it's safe to assume the same can be said vise versa.

the teams built their cars around a 'philosophy', an 'idea'. mount this 'double pecker' on any of the other cars, and your entire balance and air distribution is off.

so to be honest, no - even if it's simple; it won't be copied that easy, because the design philosophy is just plain different.it's not lego plug and play.

[Neno]

Also it's not easy to pass crash test, Lotus confirmed it. Also there's going rumor that they maybe preparing for Barcelona more extreme version of twin tusk nose, but it's going to be hard to pass crash test. This car could have interesting devolopment if they hit score with their car design.

[RagingBullx]

This from the analysis of the E22 - "Racecar Engineering also understands from sources within the team that the E22 has a very clever mechanism for transmitting torque from the power unit to the transmission, which offers much greater performance than others seen by some team suppliers."
Room for an IVT in there?

[slimfitcasual]

Either the FIA will amend the 2015 regs and do away with twin-tusk designs, or the field will be full of them next year yeah? Could go either way.

[Per]

Either the FIA will amend the 2015 regs and do away with twin-tusk designs, or the field will be full of them next year yeah? Could go either way.

I still think they are bad for impact at a slightly sideways angle. AFAIK this is not tested in the crash tests. But no-one seems to have a problem with that so far.

[patrik]

Either the FIA will amend the 2015 regs and do away with twin-tusk designs, or the field will be full of them next year yeah? Could go either way.

I still think they are bad for impact at a slightly sideways angle. AFAIK this is not tested in the crash tests. But no-one seems to have a problem with that so far.

What? The E22 has passed the crash test.

[iotar__]

Like Mercedes engine/ERS (or even the whole car - "exceeding expectations")? I heard plenty people talking about it but it's good to know that in fact it sucks. Interesting logic.

The difference is: The Nose is rather easy to copy. So if it was the magical bullett they would risk losing their advantage earlier than necessary by praising it.
Traditional strategy would have been sandbagging as long as possible. That contradict with the Need for PR to attract a potential big Sponsor.
It is rather safe to assume their search for a Sponsor is not completely unrelated to their praising of the design of the car.

I simply guess the nose is not the main Thing that makes the Lotus particularly quick (if it really is) but possibly something else. That way they could detract and still produce good PR for themselves without risking of giving away their secret.
You would have to be really stupid to point everyone directly to an easy to copy game changing feature.
My conclusion: The car may be very good but I doubt it will be mainly due to the nose.

You can apply fishing for sponsors to anything and it's simply not a good argument, tell me what brings more buzz: commenting to F1 media about distinctive visually design plus to one paper/site about tunnel numbers or putting your rookie driver on a fast lap and topping time-sheets everyone, starting with Sky, will put in headlines? Nevermind the fact that it's not how you get sponsors, they don't read F1 sites. I'd tell you how you try to do it for 2 seasons without effect but it'd be OT

According to Chester, Lopez - on the contrary it's rather difficult to copy. Two main reasons: crash test and the whole airflow "philosophy" (couldn't find a better word) and connected to it design of the back of the car. I have no clue if it's good except obvious visual, non-technical volume vs direction difference and through it implied better ability to emulate previous season's approach.

This discussion is even more pointless than usual (from me) so I'll add one info I read somewhere (eurosport?) - it doesn't matter which tusk is longer and they wouldn't change it even if they could for tracks (clockwise-anti), so there's that.

[Matt Somers]

Like Mercedes engine/ERS (or even the whole car - "exceeding expectations")? I heard plenty people talking about it but it's good to know that in fact it sucks. Interesting logic.

The difference is: The Nose is rather easy to copy. So if it was the magical bullett they would risk losing their advantage earlier than necessary by praising it.
Traditional strategy would have been sandbagging as long as possible. That contradict with the Need for PR to attract a potential big Sponsor.
It is rather safe to assume their search for a Sponsor is not completely unrelated to their praising of the design of the car.

I simply guess the nose is not the main Thing that makes the Lotus particularly quick (if it really is) but possibly something else. That way they could detract and still produce good PR for themselves without risking of giving away their secret.
You would have to be really stupid to point everyone directly to an easy to copy game changing feature.
My conclusion: The car may be very good but I doubt it will be mainly due to the nose.

I'm not convinced it's that easy to copy given it requires a full car CFD run rather than the 1/2 car run the teams usually do, especially with the new CFD restrictions for this season and given the rear of the car is asymmetric too.

[Matt Somers]

https://twitter.com/SomersF1/status/438630018868973569 https://twitter.com/SomersF1/status/438631066782273537

[scarbs]

Either the FIA will amend the 2015 regs and do away with twin-tusk designs, or the field will be full of them next year yeah? Could go either way.

I still think they are bad for impact at a slightly sideways angle. AFAIK this is not tested in the crash tests. But no-one seems to have a problem with that so far.

18.6 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.

[turbof1]

https://twitter.com/SomersF1/status/438631066782273537 I find this is very interesting. I made a comment on that article, could you please check it out? Something I don't completely get.

[Blackout]

Nick Chester says that solution is 'elegant'
I assumed, beacaue they are late and have delays, they produced a simple rear crash structure to pass the crash tests, and bolted on a simple RW support for the first tests... just a compromised and temporary solution... I't seems i'm wrong.

[madly]

Do I see it correctly, that suspension is attached to exhaust pipe? If yes, will this exhaust moveable in any direction as suspension forces apply deflection?

On the floor there is bulb - is it camera seeing rear wheel at the rear of that bulb?