I can only hope that they aren't winners and that the old adage is true; function follows form.
Edited by cheapracer, 05 February 2012 - 07:23.
Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:14
Edited by cheapracer, 05 February 2012 - 07:23.
Advertisement
Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:28
Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:44
And what is wrong with those ugly mad boffins nightmares. And I do mean the whole car just not those absolutely rediculous front wings with there 28 or so planes!
Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:01
^ Photo taken with an iphone.
Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:05
Posted 05 February 2012 - 14:16
About ugliness. .... You can see the evolution in aerodynamics merely by one glance at the cars.
Edited by cheapracer, 05 February 2012 - 14:16.
Posted 05 February 2012 - 14:51
Posted 05 February 2012 - 15:01
You are mistaking "busy" with "purpose" here.look so much more....purposeful.
Posted 05 February 2012 - 15:34
Posted 05 February 2012 - 16:18
The McLaren doesn't look that way, it comes down to how you interpret the rules.
Posted 05 February 2012 - 18:37
That's very true and what I was saying is the rules should be written so no one ends up with that interpretation for the good of the sport (fans visual aspect).
Edited by 24gerrard, 05 February 2012 - 18:44.
Posted 06 February 2012 - 00:29
The McLaren doesn't look that way, it comes down to how you interpret the rules.
Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:49
That's very true and what I was saying is the rules should be written so no one ends up with that interpretation for the good of the sport (fans visual aspect).
Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:04
In that case (and many others) natural selecion took charge of fixing the problem. I guess it wont happen this time.
Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:50
Posted 06 February 2012 - 15:20
but so far, the tip of the nose's are just as high, if not higher than previous cars
Edited by cheapracer, 06 February 2012 - 15:23.
Posted 06 February 2012 - 15:53
Posted 06 February 2012 - 16:04
Posted 06 February 2012 - 19:57
The tip of the nose is only a few plies of carbon and has minimal strength so disintegrates immediately on impact. Vulnerable areas of the chassis are covered with a material called zylon which is highly resistant to intrusions.No they aren't but here's the rub, the lower nose was introduced on safety grounds but we have ended up with this spear on the Sauber ...
... now someone tell me that hitting the side of your car at 100 mph isn't going to penetrate right through and cut you in half.
Advertisement
Posted 06 February 2012 - 20:16
The tip of the nose is only a few plies of carbon and has minimal strength so disintegrates immediately on impact. Vulnerable areas of the chassis are covered with a material called zylon which is highly resistant to intrusions.
Edited by saudoso, 06 February 2012 - 20:17.
Posted 06 February 2012 - 20:19
Posted 06 February 2012 - 20:19
You can see there all the things FIA screwed: The wider wheel base, the lower and wider rear wing. The nose does not need mentioning righ now.I for one am glad you did
I might just pop over to the old farts forum for a bit, some beautiful cars over there, some are even officially beautiful, being found on display in art museums.
Edited by saudoso, 06 February 2012 - 20:21.
Posted 06 February 2012 - 21:28
Or tights.Vulnerable areas are covered with a material called zylon which is highly resistant to intrusions.
Posted 06 February 2012 - 23:32
Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:40
Rachael, that seems to me a bit daft- that way they would seem to throw away a good chance to absorb part of the frontal impact before it reaches main structure (monocoque and survival cell). Stiffer/stronger nose section would IMHO reduce the g loads on driver in case of frontal impact.
Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:06
Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:11
hopping airborne just a little bit, would seem to be likely to hit a helmet before any car-to-car contact is made.
Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:18
Posted 07 February 2012 - 13:14
Posted 07 February 2012 - 13:26
Rachael, I hate to press a point, but... Your original post pointed out that the nose has minimal strength and disintegrates upon impact and therefore will pose minimal threat to the driver being T-boned (implied that it won't exert significant force during impact). I find it a bit hard to believe, on account that I suppose it is designed to absorb crash energy- and in order to do so, force must be exerted (I'd say kinetic-kinetic energy dissipation would be minimal) over a distance... I would think that nose was designed for considerable strength (as well as with 'predefined' mode of 'collapsing') within other constraints like function and min. weight.
As per deceleration 'confusion' (I'd say we've not understood each other fully). Let's look at the crash as two-stage event, with two distinct stages*- nose impact and survival cell impact (after the nose was crushed). All the deceleration and energy absorption the nose section does not provide will still have to be absorbed by survival cell, causing the greater impact upon driver. That was my point.
* nose impact would be much more like elastic collision with significant distance within which the event takes place (and time too), whereas survival cell impact is more like solid object hitting another solid body (very short time, small distance- resulting in large deceleration rates), esp. bearing in mind that survival cell must remain intact. Deceleration during the nose impact would be considerably smaller than during survival cell impact- and stronger nose would not affect it by much. Initial deceleration (to which you refer to) would rise, but both peak and average deceleration would drop which is beneficial to the driver (and I was referring to that).
P.S. Sorry for the long-winded post, but... If the nose was designed to absorb energy during the crash event, IMHO it will pose a 'threat' during impact with another car; and I would think that noses are designed to offer significant impact absorption.
Posted 07 February 2012 - 13:30
"The tip of the nose is only a few plies of carbon" - sorry I should have been more specific - the first 80 to 100mm has minimal strength.
Posted 07 February 2012 - 17:09
Posted 07 February 2012 - 17:48
Posted 07 February 2012 - 20:08
Posted 07 February 2012 - 20:26
Guess the 2012 version of Vettel and Webber must run hotter.;)According to Newey that hole is a driver cooling duct
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/97390
Posted 08 February 2012 - 01:01
Guess the 2012 version of Vettel and Webber must run hotter.;)
Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:07
pretty much every car from recent years has a little oval intake in the tip of the nose for this purpose
Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:53
Yes exactly, they have had a "little" intake and now Oldey is suddenly is overly concerned about his driver's comfort ...... not.
Posted 08 February 2012 - 13:53
I agree with anyone who feels that it would be valuable for F1 cars to look better than they do now. Most of the car lovers I know already aren't interested in F1 because they aren't similar enough to "real" cars to evoke the same passion. A lot of people I know who will drool over and read magazines etc about real cars all day, but see F1 cars as unrelated objects like bobsleds or something. I think many of them, for example, people in the US, if could get exposed enough to F1, would embrace them in the way that we do. However, the less they look like sleek works of technology art, and the more they look like oddball kit cars, the harder this is. A big part of the thing about cars that makes people so wild about them is their sex appeal. I think it was stupid to have the regulations include a sharp change in height in the nose. just lower the whole thing or leave it alone. Don't make it look broken and the opposite of sleek.
Advertisement
Posted 08 February 2012 - 21:47
Posted 09 February 2012 - 03:50
Yes...of course it is......According to Newey that hole is a driver cooling duct
Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:01
Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:07
No they aren't but here's the rub, the lower nose was introduced on safety grounds but we have ended up with this spear on the Sauber ...
Posted 24 February 2012 - 07:51
AUTOSPORT understands that the issue relates to the extreme possibility of a team trying to make use of a bigger throttle opening than is allowed, to help increase the flow of exhaust gases by inducing a misfire.
Posted 24 February 2012 - 08:07
There's nothing like a bit of secrecy to generate festering conspiracy theories.Yes...of course it is......And honest - there's absolutely no aerodynamic benefit at all....
Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:40
Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:43
Edited by 24gerrard, 24 February 2012 - 11:43.
Posted 24 February 2012 - 14:17
Maybe it just neutralises the normal low-pressure area of the drivers' cock-pit...There's nothing like a bit of secrecy to generate festering conspiracy theories.
The purpose of the air intake is obviously aero related, because it affects airflow. Those effects can be perfectly innocent as well subversive.
Place a ramp on the front of a 350km/hr car and, no matter how refined it is in the wind tunnel, it will deflect air upwards. This might interfere with airflow over the cockpit, and to the airbox and rear wing.
Allowing the air to enter the cockpit, through the ramp, and then dissipate through the driver opening could reduce those effects.
Perhaps it serves the same function as the ducted screen on the Lotus 49, much discussed elsewhere. Simply a case of controlling airflow rather than leaving it to find its own way (I'm sure Adrian hates uncontrolled anything).
Perhaps it helps cool RBRs previously troublesome KERS.
Or, perhaps it's the discovery and exploitation of another regulation loophole!
Posted 24 February 2012 - 20:49
Posted 24 February 2012 - 21:54
shame you cannot share low pressure in cockpit to underfloor ala Mallock