CaterhamF1 CT-01 Renault

[scarbs]

The rules demand the chasiss is undamaged durign the test. In a crash test the damage is restricted to the removeable structures, such as the nose cone and side impact spars.

[astracrazy]

well its a test to make sure the chassis meets the required limits, not a test to see when the chassis breaks. So if the chassis is strong enough to pass required levels then the damage shouldn't be to bad

[PlatinumZealot]

wow i thought the chassis' were tested to destruction, how agressive are these crash tests if the chassis can be repaired?

Then you want to destroy the driver too? haha.. But yeah Testing to destruction is something that the teams would do themselves in their own internal testing I think. More than likely it would be just the chassis without the crash structures in that internal test... More of like a verification of the design. The regulatory testing now is different.. as it has specifics to not just whether the chassis gets destroyed..but to the impulse of the crash.

example:
Upon crashing acceleration must be below 20g for the first 150 milliseconds within the fisrt 10cm of deformation
8g for the next 5cm of deformation
etc.. (numbers are just examples)

In real life though the crash structure may deform to design but the chassis can still get damaged as with Kubica in Canada.

[Maggot]

First Pics

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hp ... 9081_n.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56875031@N06/6759549483/

[myoozikk]

Here's another pic...



God that nose is ugly!

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

That is one ugly %#€$'£&!

But, look how tight it looks around the side pods....

[wesley123]

The nose is the only ugly part of the car imo.

Also looks like they took the Red Bull sidepods and put them on their own car.

[myurr]

Ugh, I think a little bit of sick just came up.

I guess the Ferrari is going to have a similarly ugly nose if they're talking about it being an ugly car.

[myurr]

That is one ugly %#€$'£&!

But, look how tight it looks around the side pods....

Those are really very Red Bull like side pods.

[sesku]

the tub look almost like RB5.

[beelsebob]

Wow the new nose rules beat that with an ugly stick.

[shelly]

I find interesting that the sidepods seem to exploit all the available width (1400mm)

Piola states that for 2012 ferrari ae trying to make narriwer sidepods, with more undercu, and leave the footplate exposed to some extent. And that's what logic suggests, as flow is less acclerated on the side and has then to follow a less lossy path decelerating in the coke bottle zone.

But IIRC Rb7 was different in that zone, going for full width sidepods; the other cars all seemed to have some width fo footplate exposed. CT01 seems similar to rb6 in this respect.

[Coefficient]

That looks like a computer rendering to me. I don’t believe this is the whole truth, that front wing is very “vanilla”. They finished last season with a more complex front wing design than this one.

I can’t help but think of a Duck Billed Platypus when I see this car and unfortunately the rumour mill seems to tell us that most cars will look like this. This could be the ugliest F1 season on record. Still, if it’s quick who cares. Does look funny as though!!!

[beelsebob]

Interesting lack of a DRS actuator there – built into the wing supports instead?

[Blackout]

Exhaust outlets visible here