2011 F1 car concepts

[Richard]

High nose v low nose is one of those fundamental choices that makes F1 interesting. Like tubo v non-turbo in the olden days, or shark fins in recent years.

Actually reading the rules, high noses are not banned, they are limited to 625mm. Compare that to the front tyre at 660mm diameter.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/12/1 ... explained/

[djones]

So in terms of the F-Duct, the ban is on the fin and a driver operated device.

If the Merc one works without the driver and goes up the sides of the rear wing then its probably season in the bag for them!!

[thestig84]

So in terms of the F-Duct, the ban is on the fin and a driver operated device.

If the Merc one works without the driver and goes up the sides of the rear wing then its probably season in the bag for them!!

No, Mercedes nor any other team can run a passive f-duct as I read it.

From the scarbs link:
"As with the beam wing, the upper rear wing is prevented from having slots extending beyond the central 15cm. This prevent F-ducts or other blown slots, the latter which have been exploited for several years.

[Just_a_fan]

no high noses is a bit pointless IMO.

High noses with the nose point above 120 mm will be banned from 2013 to keep the CoG of front wheel KERS down. This could potentially already happen in 2012.

Do you have a source for the low nose change (other than Scarbs' twitter post)?

I've seen suggestions that from 2013 the cars might be configured to generate more d/f from the floor than the wings. This would be great if so.

[Owen.C93]

no high noses is a bit pointless IMO.

High noses with the nose point above 120 mm will be banned from 2013 to keep the CoG of front wheel KERS down. This could potentially already happen in 2012.

Do you have a source for the low nose change (other than Scarbs' twitter post)?

I've seen suggestions that from 2013 the cars might be configured to generate more d/f from the floor than the wings. This would be great if so.

No I don't, pretty decent source though. But of course it can easily change.

It's not that I'm against it as such. I just didn't see the reason. However it will make more sense to have "really" low noses in 2013 for the KERS system. But I don't know why they felt the need to ban V Noses.

[Richard]

Do you have a source for the low nose change (other than Scarbs' twitter post)?

Doh! Have you read scarbs post? Did you see those quotes from 15.2.3 and 15.4.4 ???

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/12/1 ... explained/

15.2.3 The highest point of the second structure may not be more than 670mm above the reference plane and must pass a static load test details of which may be found in Article 17.3.

15.4.4 The maximum height of the survival cell between the lines A-A and B-B is 625mm above the reference plane.

[Just_a_fan]

Do you have a source for the low nose change (other than Scarbs' twitter post)?

Doh! Have you read scarbs post? Did you see those quotes from 15.2.3 and 15.4.4 ???

"Doh!" yourself - the bits you're looking at are for the 2011 regs. The low noses referred to above are proposed from 2013. Do keep up.

"Low nose" would suggest that the bottom of the nose structure will, from 2013, be almost coincident with the front wing plane. This is a big departure from the current vogue and a return to the days of the MP4/4 et al.

As it happens, the BBC have, subsequent to my post, carried a story about the work of Head and Byrne working up to the 2013 regs. This shows why the low nose is likely to return - as a way of limiting the effectiveness of the front wing and thus reducing overall downforce levels.

[Richard]

Apologies


Yes, that BBC story was interesting, but how much of it is the need to fill column inches during the close season? Or someone flying a kite to see which ideas get shot down and which survive?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 307861.stm

[Just_a_fan]

Apologies

No probs

Yes, that BBC story was interesting, but how much of it is the need to fill column inches during the close season? Or someone flying a kite to see which ideas get shot down and which survive?

I think it's probably real but whether the ideas put forward by Head and Byrne are accepted and written in to the 2013 regs is another matter. I hope they are because it sounds like it could be quite fun and answers a lot of the 'issues' thrown up by various people.

[imightbewrong]

A visualization of the rule changes, it is in Spanish but the graphics are quite explanatory for those that haven't grasped them:
http://www.marca.com/2010/12/21/multime ... 48823.html

[hollus]

A visualization of the rule changes, it is in Spanish but the graphics are quite explanatory for those that haven't grasped them:
http://www.marca.com/2010/12/21/multime ... 48823.html

They got the F-duct wrong, but I guess since it is now banned, it doesn't matter!

[kalinka]

At top speed it'll require quite a big force to elevate that RW flap. Wonder how they would manage to put a relatively strong actuator in that thin endplate. Is there any regulation for the tchikness of the RW endplates?

[vall]

So, it seems that not only DDDs, but also EBDs are banned. The top three teams had the most efficient EBDs, no? This should cut their advantage to the rest of the field....

[Blackout]

Exhausts that blow over the floor/diffuser are not banned.

[vall]

Exhausts that blow over the floor/diffuser are not banned.

yes, it is not, but would that have are performance benefit?