New technical regs
#1
Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:39
In work so cant read them at the minute, hopefully its the end of the stepped nose design!
FIA Website
Advertisement
#2
Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:51
3.7.9 With the exception of an optional, single piece, non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate
(whose precise lay-up may be found in the Appendix to the regulations) which may not be
more than 625mm above the reference plane at any point, no bodywork situated more than
1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above
the reference plane.
#3
Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:55
Yup, it's in there:
3.7.9 With the exception of an optional, single piece, non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate
(whose precise lay-up may be found in the Appendix to the regulations) which may not be
more than 625mm above the reference plane at any point, no bodywork situated more than
1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above
the reference plane.
Anyone got the measurements for how far ahead the rear-face of the cockpit the step currently is? Have they moved that point forward?
#4
Posted 27 September 2012 - 13:24
Nope. The step stays the same, they just allow to add a non-structural cover.Anyone got the measurements for how far ahead the rear-face of the cockpit the step currently is? Have they moved that point forward?
Edited by dau, 27 September 2012 - 13:24.
#5
Posted 27 September 2012 - 13:41
#6
Posted 27 September 2012 - 13:48
#7
Posted 27 September 2012 - 13:53
#8
Posted 27 September 2012 - 15:15
#9
Posted 27 September 2012 - 19:13
Merc's DRS - no more in 2013. I wonder why.Just published by the FIA.
In work so cant read them at the minute, hopefully its the end of the stepped nose design!
FIA Website
#10
Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:14
#11
Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:16
#13
Posted 27 September 2012 - 21:42
Because FIA loves banning things.Merc's DRS - no more in 2013. I wonder why.
#14
Posted 27 September 2012 - 21:45
Because FIA loves banning things.
Actually teams agreed to ban the solution.
#15
Posted 27 September 2012 - 21:55
#16
Posted 27 September 2012 - 22:15
#17
Posted 28 September 2012 - 02:33
Time to force noses to the floor and ban splitters.
Yep, great way to also decrease downforce, though the top teams will surely not want to start over again.
#18
Posted 28 September 2012 - 02:38
#19
Posted 28 September 2012 - 03:47
I smell big debates and arguments between teams and FIA over this
Edited by vas04614, 28 September 2012 - 03:48.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 28 September 2012 - 03:55
#21
Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:21
On that topic...Can we go back to the 2008 rear wings with DRS? Also reduce the width of the snow ploughs slightly? We should see some beauty back in the cars.
Why did they not lower the whole nose (ala McLaren and Marussia)? Surely that would reduce aerodynamic performance (initially, of course Mac and Marussia have it figured out), which would be desirable?
The cars would look better with the fully lowered nose.
They have missed a trick with this one IMO.
#22
Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:23
Yep, great way to also decrease downforce,
They should have no say.though the top teams will surely not want to start over again.
They can afford to redesign their car, but don't want to lose their advantage, it's pathetic.
Fully lowering the nose would be an excellent idea.
#23
Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:01
Yep, great way to also decrease downforce, though the top teams will surely not want to start over again.
Would cause a very large reduction in downforce from the floor. Would also result in much better looking cars.
An issue which Scarbs has brought up is that in the event of an accident, this temporary nose cover will simply fly off the car and could be lethal. Would be heading straight for the drivers head possibly.
#24
Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:32
Front wing width will be reduced to 1650mm for 2014. Currently they can use the full 1800mm car width. Rear wings will stay the same as far as i'm aware.Can we go back to the 2008 rear wings with DRS? Also reduce the width of the snow ploughs slightly? We should see some beauty back in the cars.
The teams probably didn't want to change too much. Maybe some won't even run that fairing, they're all used to the stepped noses now.On that topic...
Why did they not lower the whole nose (ala McLaren and Marussia)? Surely that would reduce aerodynamic performance (initially, of course Mac and Marussia have it figured out), which would be desirable?
The cars would look better with the fully lowered nose.
They have missed a trick with this one IMO.
Scarbs wrote that they wanted to drop the nose tips to 250mm for 2014, but i can't find anything in the regulations about this.
#25
Posted 28 September 2012 - 09:06
Scarbs wrote that they wanted to drop the nose tips to 250mm for 2014, but i can't find anything in the regulations about this.
I believe the bulkhead is also being reduced for 2014, eliminating the need for those covers.
#26
Posted 28 September 2012 - 10:41
edit: funny, I was going to add something like 'it be nice to see what Scrabs has to say about it' and then I read Ali_G's post just above mine.
Edited by wingwalker, 28 September 2012 - 22:56.
#27
Posted 28 September 2012 - 10:56
#28
Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:33
So wait. The teams are not forced to add this cover on the nose, right? Is it optional?
Completely optional.
I can't see any team not using it though. The aerodynamic gain would be too much to turn down I'd expect.
#29
Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:38
#30
Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:53
Completely optional.
I can't see any team not using it though. The aerodynamic gain would be too much to turn down I'd expect.
I'd heard last year that the stepped noses didn't have much of a detrimental affect on aerodynamics. Without the stepped nose the air then has to go around the driver's head, and the cockpit opening and airbox, so the stepped nose wasn't too much of a disruption.
The stepped noses look fugly IMO. I guess when the FIA state how the vanity cover is to be manufactured they're trying to ensure that it'll be light and won't do any damage in an accident.
#31
Posted 28 September 2012 - 16:36
It doesn't matter if they agree or not. Not to mention it's almost always down to politics.Actually teams agreed to ban the solution.
Yeah, great idea, let's reduce the good one (more resistant to turbulent flow). Additional benefit is that maybe we'll achieve our goal of making the cars slower than GP2Yep, great way to also decrease downforce, though the top teams will surely not want to start over again.
Edited by DrProzac, 28 September 2012 - 16:40.
#32
Posted 28 September 2012 - 16:41
Merc's DRS - no more in 2013. I wonder why.
Because everything eventually gets banned!
Like with all things in the sport, I have got used to the stepped-noses but won't be sad to see them banished to history never to return (I hope)
#33
Posted 28 September 2012 - 17:40
Also separate to the car mandate a minimum COG + weight for the driver - to be compensated for by additional ballast. So that don't penalise taller heavier drivers as much.
#34
Posted 28 September 2012 - 19:53
Yeah, great idea, let's reduce the good one (more resistant to turbulent flow). Additional benefit is that maybe we'll achieve our goal of making the cars slower than GP2
Raised noses create downforce (well in turbulence) at the rear of the car. WOuld make a lot of difference if we cut downforce generation at the front of the car which was good at generating downforce while in turbulence.
I'd personally like to see venturi's reintroduced with very long sidepods. Do the tech regs so the centre of downforce is far enough forward to allow cars to run without front wings at practically all tracks. Let em run with barn door rear wings to balance the car for what I care.
#35
Posted 28 September 2012 - 20:45
Also I do't like the concept of decreasing downforce. It's flawed in many different ways and in the end you can't turn the clocks back, not to mention making other racing series slower.
I fully agree with the second part of your post. I'd also like a ground effects oriented formula with a lot less wing generated downforce (but with the overall downforce level equal or a reasonably higher than we have for a few years now). I'd allow more freedom in other areas, like active aerodynamics for more efficient and low drag cooling (variable side-pod intake area, for example) etc. It would be good "green" marketing (BS, I know) plus it would be something new.
Ah, did I mention engines with at least V10 era power?
Edited by DrProzac, 28 September 2012 - 20:45.
#36
Posted 28 September 2012 - 22:39
An issue which Scarbs has brought up is that in the event of an accident, this temporary nose cover will simply fly off the car and could be lethal. Would be heading straight for the drivers head possibly.
This crossed my mind when I first heard of this "modesty panel" idea - hopefully we won't find out if it will present a problem.
#37
Posted 02 October 2012 - 17:51
Nose can be a max 185mm above the ground. The bulkhead will be reduced to 550mm.
#38
Posted 02 October 2012 - 17:58
Obviously to stop this Schumacher domination everyone is getting tired of.Merc's DRS - no more in 2013. I wonder why.