With the track debut of the new V6 turbo engines coming closer and closer, teams are admitting that one of the major challenges of getting and efficient and reliable package will be managing the cooling systems.
Excalibur F1 , finally!idfx wrote:I did two images, using grids, have to redraw, ones outside rules. Ajust.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ewOR ... 14-02a.jpg[/url]
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-GYts ... -2014a.jpg[/url]
links image
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-GYts ... -2014a.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ewOR ... 14-02a.jpg
Thanks
Renault did so in 2003, I do think it is legal, but I don't really see the point in doing sowuzak wrote:I don't think so. Suspension members have to be symmetrical about the long axis of the section.WilliamsF1 wrote:Is a gurney flap allowed on a suspension wishbone? Will there be any use on the top rear wishbone?
I don't think they would be legal because the suspension members are supposed to be symmetrical. Even if they are legal I doubt they would be used. This is because while it is true you will gain a little bit of downforce, you also add in a lot of turbulence in the airflow. Something aerodynamicists tend to avoid at all costs unless for a very specific reason. Remember this airflow then has to go around the rest of the car.wesley123 wrote:Renault did so in 2003, I do think it is legal, but I don't really see the point in doing sowuzak wrote:I don't think so. Suspension members have to be symmetrical about the long axis of the section.WilliamsF1 wrote:Is a gurney flap allowed on a suspension wishbone? Will there be any use on the top rear wishbone?
WilliamsF1 wrote:Is a gurney flap allowed on a suspension wishbone? Will there be any use on the top rear wishbone?
I don't think so. Suspension members have to be symmetrical about the long axis of the section.
Renault did so in 2003, I do think it is legal, but I don't really see the point in doing so
Red Bull were doing this a couple of years ago before the FIA stopped them. Very useful some unsprung df.I don't think they would be legal because the suspension members are supposed to be symmetrical. Even if they are legal I doubt they would be used. This is because while it is true you will gain a little bit of downforce, you also add in a lot of turbulence in the airflow. Something aerodynamicists tend to avoid at all costs unless for a very specific reason. Remember this airflow then has to go around the rest of the car.
A"crappy" surface finish could actually enhance heat transfer by creating more turbulent flow at the boundary layer.Lycoming wrote:Laser sintering gives you kind of a crappy surface finish. It also doesn't work great with thin walls, and the material used is similar in mechanical properties to 6061, albeit with mild anisotropy. I don't really see how you would make a better radiator this way. A much, much more expensive on, sure, but not really better....
I´d say the surface finish is not that big issue ,but if you really thought it was why not extrudehone it ?Lycoming wrote:Laser sintering gives you kind of a crappy surface finish. It also doesn't work great with thin walls, and the material used is similar in mechanical properties to 6061, albeit with mild anisotropy. I don't really see how you would make a better radiator this way. A much, much more expensive on, sure, but not really better....
You could, but copper isn't a better thermal conductor than aluminum on a per mass basis. Copper radiators are for computers, not racecars.marcush. wrote: Thinkin off it you could use a copper alloy and do away with the soldering process .....enhancing heat transfer ....
I find it very amusing that per se everything has to be light to be useful for formula 1 but really this is a tad misleading logic here .the original rush for going underweight was to be able to have the possibility to place denser components lower in the car where you need the weight.Lycoming wrote:Ok, fair points about the surface finish.
You could, but copper isn't a better thermal conductor than aluminum on a per mass basis. Copper radiators are for computers, not racecars.marcush. wrote: Thinkin off it you could use a copper alloy and do away with the soldering process .....enhancing heat transfer ....
that practice has been going on in f1 for a long long timeManoah2u wrote:just a question that popped into my mind.....could constructors perhaps delibaretly create vortices or 'aerodynamics' at the rear of the car that cause turbulent air with the intention of messing up the air behind so it will cause a negative effect to the cars behind? Obviously there is the risk of actually ruining your own aero if not done properly, but is it actually possible and is it legal?
for example; let's say Ferrari has a car that is aerodynamically sound, and they put some effects at the very rear of their
rear wing endplates, which will not harm them but will induce a significant amount of turbulent air behind them, messing
up the aero for the car directly behind them.
is that possible, are there rules that prevent this and if not, does this already happen?
Problem with that is that vortices never come for free. You have to induce energy to get a vortex.Manoah2u wrote: for example; let's say Ferrari has a car that is aerodynamically sound, and they put some effects at the very rear of their
rear wing endplates, which will not harm them but will induce a significant amount of turbulent air behind them, messing
up the aero for the car directly behind them.
I doubt it that this has been extensively done for the aforementioned reasons.siskue2005 wrote:that practice has been going on in f1 for a long long time
