Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Blown wheelnuts.


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 13,129 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:25

The Williams has 'blown' wheelnuts. :lol: Deemed illegal on RBR but seemingly destined to be legal on the Williams which has already had the legality of it's exhaust bought into question.

Craig Scarborough‏@ScarbsF1
Blown wheelnuts: Last year Red Bull blew air out of the holes in the axle for an aero benefit
https://twitter.com/...4214401/photo/1
RBRs idea was banned as the openings were outboard of the wheelnut, which contravened the rules that banned wheel fairings
Williams have now followed the idea, but the opening is flush with the wheelnut in order to be legal

Any other teams onto this? Can't imagine the gains are that big!

Edited by Owen, 19 February 2013 - 22:29.


Advertisement

#2 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:28

Good old Coughlan pushing the boundaries of legality...

#3 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 27,247 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:29

This rulebook circumnavigation is just boring now. It'll be banned at some point, then they'll find something else... lather, rinse, repeat. Holes on wheelnuts, no doubt a new fascinating dimension to the races.

Edited by Disgrace, 19 February 2013 - 22:30.


#4 Dino2000

Dino2000
  • Member

  • 96 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:36

This rulebook circumnavigation is just boring now. It'll be banned at some point, then they'll find something else... lather, rinse, repeat. Holes on wheelnuts, no doubt a new fascinating dimension to the races.


Well, maybe is not fascinating for you but for many others is. Brainstorming engineering is part of the F1 DNA, without such, we'd never had cars as the blower Brabham or the Lotus 88. Stretching the boundaries of the regulations is probably one of the most fascinating things of this game called Formula 1.

#5 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 27,247 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:38

Feel free to misinterpret my point as you wish.

#6 Dino2000

Dino2000
  • Member

  • 96 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 19 February 2013 - 22:47

Feel free to misinterpret my point as you wish.


Well then my apologies, but I can't find any other interpretation of your post.

Take care.

Dino

#7 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:51

Blown wheel nuts ! wow ! I must have a set of those on my Ford Anglia.

#8 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 13,129 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:11

I think this just reinforces the fact that F1 has become obsessed with aero. Aero seems to be the only area left to still find legal gains.

#9 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:22

I think this just reinforces the fact that F1 has become obsessed with aero. Aero seems to be the only area left to still find legal gains.


Next up: Blown helmets utilizing hot air from driver's head to feed the diffuser. :drunk:

#10 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:27

Well then my apologies, but I can't find any other interpretation of your post.

Take care.

Dino



It is not so difficult to understand that Disgrace, with whom I do not often agree, by the way, is, rightly, in my opinion, fed up with teams trying to find new ways to breach the rulebook, as opposed to new ways to improve performance.

I long for the time where, when the regulation said "no holes", teams tried to find the best way to race without holes, as opposed to retaining a linguist to argument that a slot is not a hole.

I know it is not a popular opinion around here, but ever since a genius ruled that "there is not a spirit of the rules anymore", interpreting F1 sporting and technical regulations has become a joke, in which the most outrageous proposition prevails.

#11 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:32

breach the rulebook, as opposed to new ways to improve performance.


What's the difference? On the diving line between the two live both innovation and illegality. Depending on how clever your performance gain is, dissenters or fans will call out either word.

Edited by F1ultimate, 20 February 2013 - 10:33.


#12 Absulute

Absulute
  • Member

  • 1,035 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:38

Next up: Blown helmets utilizing hot air from driver's head to feed the diffuser. :drunk:


So that's where Fernando's six tenths comes from.

#13 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 5,200 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:39

It is not so difficult to understand that Disgrace, with whom I do not often agree, by the way, is, rightly, in my opinion, fed up with teams trying to find new ways to breach the rulebook, as opposed to new ways to improve performance.

I long for the time where, when the regulation said "no holes", teams tried to find the best way to race without holes, as opposed to retaining a linguist to argument that a slot is not a hole.

I know it is not a popular opinion around here, but ever since a genius ruled that "there is not a spirit of the rules anymore", interpreting F1 sporting and technical regulations has become a joke, in which the most outrageous proposition prevails.


:confused:

there has never been a 'spirit of the rules'

it has always seemed to be a phrase used by designers that are not winning at that moment in time, with a mouth full of sour grapes.




#14 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 5,373 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:47

It is not so difficult to understand that Disgrace, with whom I do not often agree, by the way, is, rightly, in my opinion, fed up with teams trying to find new ways to breach the rulebook, as opposed to new ways to improve performance. [...]

They're not. This is a new way to improve performance.


#15 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,227 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 February 2013 - 15:11

Unfortunately everything is that defined by the regulations now that the only way to get an advantage is to sail very close to the wind. Designers have always pushed the limits of the regulations and always will and I personally don't want to see a formula 1 where people arn't pushing the rules to breaking point.

#16 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 2,405 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 20 February 2013 - 18:04

This rulebook circumnavigation is just boring now. It'll be banned at some point, then they'll find something else... lather, rinse, repeat. Holes on wheelnuts, no doubt a new fascinating dimension to the races.

I actually like it, apart from the banning part. I wish the rules were more open and didn't change each year.

#17 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 27,247 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 19:03

That is the point, the rules are so tight that we're seeing innovative wheel nuts, which is just not interesting. They're even less memorable than the wheel spinners we saw in 2009. It's all aero, and at that, these are minute gains. Comparing it to the fan car and ground effect is just too much of a stretch, as those were show stoppers. Wheel nuts will never be show stoppers.

Edited by Disgrace, 20 February 2013 - 19:05.


#18 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 February 2013 - 19:24

if you look at the older cars, you can see the effect of massive areo time, the modern cars are massively more complex

#19 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 68,535 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 February 2013 - 19:26

The weird thing is to compare a 2008, 2009, and 2013 car. A 2008 car had lots of bits and sculpting, then they went to the current bodywork rules. But the first cars, 2009, were really really simple. Look at their front wings. It's like they forgot they had CAD and wind tunnels or something.

Advertisement

#20 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 February 2013 - 19:44

thats true, only? the brawn came out of the box looking complex

mind those first 2009 spec cars didnt have the rear downforce they do now which needs alot of front downforce hence those insane front wings :/