2010 cars

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
User avatar
ISLAMATRON
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2008, 18:29

Re: 2010 cars

Post

no they do not, look very close to the tire on the left of the pic and you will see the line where the exhaust ends and the cap begins.

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: 2010 cars

Post

this is a great example of 'how you view things' really, on some angles it exits out of the bodywork, but on the FIA templates where areas etc. are set it does not, thus it is legal.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
Fil
0
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 14:54
Location: Melbourne, Aus.

Re: 2010 cars

Post

Callum wrote:They are still prodtruding from the bodywork..
The caps are removed before the engine is fired up. :wink:
as Tron said, once removed, the actual exhaust itself is legally below the bodywork.
Image
Any post(s) made by this user are (semi-)educated opinion(s), based on random fact(s) blurred by the smudges of time.
Any fact(s) claimed by this user will be supplemented by a link to the original source of said fact(s).

User avatar
Callum
6
Joined: 18 Jan 2009, 15:03
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: 2010 cars

Post

I stand corrected, on the second picture, in the wet, they look fine.


EDIT: look at the second picture, its a different car, different diffuser. I go back to my orgigonal statement :lol:

User avatar
ISLAMATRON
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2008, 18:29

Re: 2010 cars

Post

the exhausts extend or contract according to the weather... in human terms it is called "shrinkage"

roost89
roost89
0
Joined: 10 Apr 2008, 19:34
Location: Highlands, Scotland

Re: 2010 cars

Post

ISLAMATRON wrote:the exhausts extend or contract according to the weather... in human terms it is called "shrinkage"
and when there's water the shrinkage is unprecedented!

apologies, I couldn't resist. A (rubbish) joke had to be put there
"It could be done manually. It would take quite a while, but it could be done. There is however a much more efficient and accurate way of getting the data. Men with lasers." Wing Commander Andy Green

User avatar
Callum
6
Joined: 18 Jan 2009, 15:03
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: 2010 cars

Post

They have created an organic exhaust system!

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2010 cars

Post

On the topic of engines/fuel economy for 2010 F1 cars, there is a great analysis over HERE by rubbergoat on the fuel usage by the various F1 engines etc showing Renault as the most fuel efficient.

Image

Image

This could make thinks really interesting in 2010 as some teams like Ferrari & Sauber will have to put bigger tanks in their cars than Merc/MacMerc/Renault/RedBull will. :)
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: 2010 cars

Post

It confirms my information from AMuS that Ferrari would have been screwed if the 2009 engines were used next year. But they will not be used. Ferrari have politicked via FOTA to have the whole thing equalized both with regard to power and fuel consumption.

One needs to consider that the customer engines typically ran without KERS while the manufacturer engines ran with KERS.

Another influence is the downforce and drag level of the chassis. Obviously Brawn had a higher downforce and drag over the whole season than McLaren had. So these figures do not only signify the engine but also the average KERS and the average aero config.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
559
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: 2010 cars

Post

The Renault looks Magical!
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 2010 cars

Post

n smikle wrote:The Renault looks Magical!
It's certainly impressive! 8)
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
outer_bongolia
5
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 19:17

Re: 2010 cars

Post

djos wrote:
n smikle wrote:The Renault looks Magical!
It's certainly impressive! 8)
That alone could make RB and Renault one of the lead contenders. On the other hand I remember Renault enginers being a little bit short on power.

It will be interesting to see how they will fare against Merc and Ferrari engines especially after those guys come with some tweaks to their engines.
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
Carl Sagan

timbo
timbo
111
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 10:14

Re: 2010 cars

Post

Funny graph))) Reminds me of that marketing tricks to lure client into believing their product is sooooo much better. Draw full bars (from zero) and you'd see a really tiny difference.
The only thing that can be deduced from this graph is - aero (or engine maps?) rules.
Also, people who think that KERS makes a difference in fuel consumption are wrong. In no way 400J per lap may save a car 100grams of fuel per lap (like what can be seen from Brawn/FI/McLaren).

marcush.
marcush.
159
Joined: 09 Mar 2004, 16:55

Re: 2010 cars

Post

timbo wrote:Funny graph))) Reminds me of that marketing tricks to lure client into believing their product is sooooo much better. Draw full bars (from zero) and you'd see a really tiny difference.
The only thing that can be deduced from this graph is - aero (or engine maps?) rules.
Also, people who think that KERS makes a difference in fuel consumption are wrong. In no way 400J per lap may save a car 100grams of fuel per lap (like what can be seen from Brawn/FI/McLaren).
exactly my thoughts..
In the seventies there were real differences with thirsty and heavy engines in Ferrari ,Matra,Alfa compared to Cossis...
The cars alone had differences in weight of 40kilos in 1976...plus the around
30 litres of fuel the 12 cylinder engines consumed additionally over a race distance compared to a cossi...
so the start weight difference was about 40-60kilos if I remember correctly ..but todays it looks more like 10 at the very extreme and No difference at the end of the race ....
We are looking at a difference of .01 in power to weight difference across the entire field in 2010 at the startline ....so it is big blabla about nothing .
those 15 litres delta in needed Volume amount to a sensational increase of 10mm in Car length max.. also a VERY deciding factor for car performance :lol...

stl0
stl0
0
Joined: 19 Jun 2009, 05:20

Re: 2010 cars

Post

Funny graph))) Reminds me of that marketing tricks to lure client into believing their product is sooooo much better. Draw full bars (from zero) and you'd see a really tiny difference.
The only thing that can be deduced from this graph is - aero (or engine maps?) rules.
I've used graphs just like this myself. Very sneaky indeed, but the data does bring up an interesting notion. If the full race fuel regulation applied to last years cars would result in something like a 6kg difference at the start between the Merc and the Brawn with full race fuel, imagine what you could do if you designed the aero with increased attention to drag reduction at the expense of downforce for 2010. If teams could reduce drag to the point where they start the race 25kg lighter than their competitors, that is a big difference, and they would be faster at the start and difficult to overtake until the fuel weights were equalized towards the end of the race.

I think the 2010 regs move the sweet spot between reducing drag and maximizing downforce more to the side of reducing downforce. At the very least, teams will have to make a choice about where the new sweet spot is.

It could also lead to some interesting races, with the teams who favored drag reduction strong at the start of races and the teams who favored downforce stronger at the end of races.

Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but tying fuel efficiency to potentially significant weight savings does move the goalposts.

Just a thought.