2014 F1 Mechanics/Aero; Design predictions to win the WCC/WDC. READ FIRST POST
- Thread starter LMSCorvetteGT2
- 302 comments
- 25,970 views
- 9,089
- Scotland
- 1,516
- Florida
- MARCUSH17
- MARCUSH16
Forgot to post this a few days ago: http://www.grandprix247.com/2014/07/11/f1-engine-boss-marmorini-departs-ferrari/
Time principal leaves, now the head of engine development.
RB10 running a blown wheel nut like the F14t?
Time principal leaves, now the head of engine development.
RB10 running a blown wheel nut like the F14t?
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 21,261
- United States
http://www.autoweek.com/article/formula-one/new-caterham-f1-team-owners-give-ax-ugly-2014-car-nose
Some interesting things in the article. Nose is getting changed and the car is actually getting development, which Fernades was apparently not allowing since he was selling the team.
Some interesting things in the article. Nose is getting changed and the car is actually getting development, which Fernades was apparently not allowing since he was selling the team.
Sorry I've taken this long to reply; haven't had any time to post on here this past week! Anyway...
However the new tyres will surely require much more drastic redesigns. One reason I think this is the suspension; the cars will need more suspension to make-up for the loss of 'suspension' in the tyre, that will be caused by lowering the profile of the tyre. Either that, or drivers will have to be a lot more lenient on the kerbs. Although you said before that WEC cars don't run much more suspension than F1 cars, I struggle to see how that can be the case. Especially when I see pictures of suspension on Le Mans cars that is like this...
Now the springs on F1 cars cannot be that large. Reason being is that they have to be mounted near-vertically; if they weren't, they'd protrude into where the driver sits. And as the bulkheads of F1 cars really aren't all that tall, they really don't leave enough space for suspension like what you see on WEC cars. Also Sauber did a cutaway project a few years back, as I'm sure you remember. And when you spot the suspension/springs on the diagram, you realize that they are in fact, tiny...
Therefore, big changes will have to be made to the front of the cars, in order to incorporate larger suspension.
Now the second reason I think that big changes to the designs will be required, is because of the turbelence that the larger eighteen inch tyres will create. Obviously the tyres now create turbelence themselves; but the larger the tyre, the more turbelence is generated. So changes to the aerodynamics will have to made in order to best handle the turbelence, and keep drag to a minimum.
As for your claim that "the only team that did a direct flow from one car to the next and is still doing that is RBR", this years Red Bull has hardly any relation to its predecessors. Sure, the rollhoop seems the same shape; but that's about where the similarities end. The bulkhead is lower (as required by the regulations), as is the nose, the sidepods are significantly higher and longer, alterations to the floor have been made, not to mention that the exhaust design and layout is completely different. And Red Bull's utilization of exhast-blown gases to aid downforce was one of their strong points, even last year; when the FIA made moves to try and stop the practice. So all these changes together, have made this years Red Bull very different from those of the previous few seasons. Both aerodynamically, and technically.
Although the amount of wind tunnel time, and CFD is limited (amongst other R&D resources), I happen to wonder if all the teams can afford to use their allowance of each (as the saying goes, time is money). Obviously it isn't a problem for the top teams, and some of the midfield teams. But the lower-midfield, and back-marker teams? I'm not so sure. Heck, I'm not even sure if they can afford to use their allowances up now. I mean there must be a reason that we don't see as much development at the back of the field as we do at the front. So would they be able to afford the cost of more R&D for more big rule changes in two years time? Because the bigger the changes, the more R&D that needs to be done; and therefore, it costs more as well.
Now I think in four years time, when even the back-markers have had time to recover from the damage that the new regulations will have inflicted on their wallets; then that will be an okay time to bring about these new tyres. The cost of this years big changes will have cost the teams a lot more money, than had the regulations stayed stable. It's even been stated by the teams that the changes this year, cost them more than had the regulations remained pretty much the same is in recent years. But I think that bringing in the new tyres in two years time will be a change that, while not being anywhere near as expensive as this years regulations, will still be costly enough to put great strain on the finances of the smaller teams.
Anyhow, I never thought they'd race new parts without testing them, at all. The reason I asked that rhetorical question is that I initially got the idea that you thought these new parts would be raced without much testing on track (hence the reason that I posted that video). However that was clearly a misunderstanding too. At the same time, I wasn't suggesting that Pirelli planned to race the tyres without much testing.
To be fair apart from the rule changes this season, the only 'big' rule changes I can recall in the previous few years has been to in relation to the height of the noses. But that was never going to have much of an effect on the designs, because that particular area of the car isn't that influential to the rest of the aerodynamics. That's why this year we've seen so many different solutions in relation to the design of the nose; because there's no one design that draws much benefit (if any at all) over the rest of the others.
However the new tyres will surely require much more drastic redesigns. One reason I think this is the suspension; the cars will need more suspension to make-up for the loss of 'suspension' in the tyre, that will be caused by lowering the profile of the tyre. Either that, or drivers will have to be a lot more lenient on the kerbs. Although you said before that WEC cars don't run much more suspension than F1 cars, I struggle to see how that can be the case. Especially when I see pictures of suspension on Le Mans cars that is like this...
Now the springs on F1 cars cannot be that large. Reason being is that they have to be mounted near-vertically; if they weren't, they'd protrude into where the driver sits. And as the bulkheads of F1 cars really aren't all that tall, they really don't leave enough space for suspension like what you see on WEC cars. Also Sauber did a cutaway project a few years back, as I'm sure you remember. And when you spot the suspension/springs on the diagram, you realize that they are in fact, tiny...
Therefore, big changes will have to be made to the front of the cars, in order to incorporate larger suspension.
Now the second reason I think that big changes to the designs will be required, is because of the turbelence that the larger eighteen inch tyres will create. Obviously the tyres now create turbelence themselves; but the larger the tyre, the more turbelence is generated. So changes to the aerodynamics will have to made in order to best handle the turbelence, and keep drag to a minimum.
As for your claim that "the only team that did a direct flow from one car to the next and is still doing that is RBR", this years Red Bull has hardly any relation to its predecessors. Sure, the rollhoop seems the same shape; but that's about where the similarities end. The bulkhead is lower (as required by the regulations), as is the nose, the sidepods are significantly higher and longer, alterations to the floor have been made, not to mention that the exhaust design and layout is completely different. And Red Bull's utilization of exhast-blown gases to aid downforce was one of their strong points, even last year; when the FIA made moves to try and stop the practice. So all these changes together, have made this years Red Bull very different from those of the previous few seasons. Both aerodynamically, and technically.
Although the amount of wind tunnel time, and CFD is limited (amongst other R&D resources), I happen to wonder if all the teams can afford to use their allowance of each (as the saying goes, time is money). Obviously it isn't a problem for the top teams, and some of the midfield teams. But the lower-midfield, and back-marker teams? I'm not so sure. Heck, I'm not even sure if they can afford to use their allowances up now. I mean there must be a reason that we don't see as much development at the back of the field as we do at the front. So would they be able to afford the cost of more R&D for more big rule changes in two years time? Because the bigger the changes, the more R&D that needs to be done; and therefore, it costs more as well.
Now I think in four years time, when even the back-markers have had time to recover from the damage that the new regulations will have inflicted on their wallets; then that will be an okay time to bring about these new tyres. The cost of this years big changes will have cost the teams a lot more money, than had the regulations stayed stable. It's even been stated by the teams that the changes this year, cost them more than had the regulations remained pretty much the same is in recent years. But I think that bringing in the new tyres in two years time will be a change that, while not being anywhere near as expensive as this years regulations, will still be costly enough to put great strain on the finances of the smaller teams.
Fair enough, no arguments here! 👍
Okay, before I go any further, I'm just going to say this; I found the tone of this part rather rude. Admittedly, I was rude at first when this debate started. But I know I was wrong, and I even admitted as such. I even apologized, as I shall do again now; I'm sorry. So I hope we can put any animosity from that to rest now...
Anyhow, I never thought they'd race new parts without testing them, at all. The reason I asked that rhetorical question is that I initially got the idea that you thought these new parts would be raced without much testing on track (hence the reason that I posted that video). However that was clearly a misunderstanding too. At the same time, I wasn't suggesting that Pirelli planned to race the tyres without much testing.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Usually I refrain from replying back to an argument/debate that's been off for nearly two weeks or more, just because it's really a non issue at that point I'd think. However, you've made it interesting and it a technical one which I enjoy so I'll continue.
Actually no, there have been massive aero rule changes the allowance for EBD was major and it being banned made it it a big rule change. The same can be said for the F-duct (which basically led the way to DRS) and then you also have Triple D being banned after 2009. There are other major rule changes obviously that go beyond just a nose change, like the 2008 to 2009 transition for example. Also the changes to other aero functions like Double DRS that were no longer allowed. You have minor things that get past most people that aren't looking for it like blown wheel hubs that some how other teams haven't really mastered but RBR did and others tried or have copied. Even in 2009 (IIRC) to 2010 you couldn't have the wheel covers anymore.
The nose and bulk head design in general to it are a big feature to the aero, hence why RBR and MGP went with such creative efforts on their current cars for example. Aero going to the turning vanes and what not being blocked compromises the car and the rest of the flow on back, so it does have an influence. I can go into further detail using the RB10 and MW05 Hybrid if you want?
I wouldn't use the Oreca from a few years back and an example and I didn't if you look at my post you see I'm giving
groups like Toyota who have been in F1 an example as F1 knowledge use in LMP1. Also I acknowledge changes will need to be made. However, I don't see why that should be used as opposition to this change for the cars.
* For an example of what I'm taking about.
*Also another example and this with an F1 style FRIC set up in the 919 Porsche
Not that big of changes refer to above images I've given from Toyota and Porsche 18 inch wheel cars with F1 style suspsension. The only massive change would be overall dimension. Perhaps making the bulk head wider or the entire car longer as well, and it may need to change anyways based on the fact that Active Suspension is in the works to return at the same time these tires are to be used.
And each year the FIA creates a reason that isn't road relevant that already has teams doing that. So it's not that much of a tall order if that's the issue you now have. Which to me seems like "well think about the teams they shouldn't have to work harder for road relevance." If I'm Costa, Newey, Lowe or Green or Tombazis and the teams that work with them getting paid millions and down from there...I think it's fine for them to work that hard if not harder.
Well argue that with Horner and Newey who claim it shares DNA with the RB9 and aero concepts, and the RB9 shared ideas of the RB8 and RB7 and so on. Also technical changes that you've specified are going to happen, you're not going to be able to see from your eyes perspective how much or how little the car has changed. Sorry but I'll take their word on it, for example like the nose the S duct is a carry over and actually a progression over those of the past RB.
Well considering that the operational cost being placed on toward other teams when one team doesn't have their own and borrows. For example Marussia using McLarens and already having a highly up to date CFD thanks to Wirth from the past. The reason we don't see development is because either teams pull stupid moves like Caterham who had plenty of sponsors and money compared to their first season especially...then you have teams like Marussia and Sauber who struggle for sponsors. Then you have teams like STR that are stunted because they're a satellite to the main team. Take your pick, the situation is due to the team more times than a woe is them issue.
Also the limit is due to those teams, they aren't so poor that they can't run the time frames that were created with them in mind. Also I don't know what the costs will be in two years time we know what they are now.
...If you think new tires are as crippling as the new engine regulations or past regulation, you'd be wrong. It was going to cost them more
it was an entirely new engine with electronics added, they agreed to it. Look at history the V8s first season cost far more than the year prior with V10s, and the same goes for the V10s and this year is the same trend. Of course it would cost more and just like before it will begin to cost less with each passing season it is here. I highly doubt it will be that harmful due to examples already given.
I don't have any animosity or anger toward you, I have no reason to it's a debate. I'm not an easy person to debate with many know this that have done so. I'm blunt and too the point to try and end it as quick as possible at times, I don't know how though you could convey a tone from my writing. There is no anger just a debate
That's fine, I wouldn't be learning much from my program if I thought any part could enter the track with very minimal testing. But unlike many others at least you could see that we misunderstood one another so that's something to be glad about, rather than making further false claims, so thanks.
Actually no, there have been massive aero rule changes the allowance for EBD was major and it being banned made it it a big rule change. The same can be said for the F-duct (which basically led the way to DRS) and then you also have Triple D being banned after 2009. There are other major rule changes obviously that go beyond just a nose change, like the 2008 to 2009 transition for example. Also the changes to other aero functions like Double DRS that were no longer allowed. You have minor things that get past most people that aren't looking for it like blown wheel hubs that some how other teams haven't really mastered but RBR did and others tried or have copied. Even in 2009 (IIRC) to 2010 you couldn't have the wheel covers anymore.
The nose and bulk head design in general to it are a big feature to the aero, hence why RBR and MGP went with such creative efforts on their current cars for example. Aero going to the turning vanes and what not being blocked compromises the car and the rest of the flow on back, so it does have an influence. I can go into further detail using the RB10 and MW05 Hybrid if you want?
However the new tyres will surely require much more drastic redesigns. One reason I think this is the suspension; the cars will need more suspension to make-up for the loss of 'suspension' in the tyre, that will be caused by lowering the profile of the tyre. Either that, or drivers will have to be a lot more lenient on the kerbs. Although you said before that WEC cars don't run much more suspension than F1 cars, I struggle to see how that can be the case. Especially when I see pictures of suspension on Le Mans cars that is like this...
I wouldn't use the Oreca from a few years back and an example and I didn't if you look at my post you see I'm giving
groups like Toyota who have been in F1 an example as F1 knowledge use in LMP1. Also I acknowledge changes will need to be made. However, I don't see why that should be used as opposition to this change for the cars.
*Also another example and this with an F1 style FRIC set up in the 919 Porsche
Now the springs on F1 cars cannot be that large. Reason being is that they have to be mounted near-vertically; if they weren't, they'd protrude into where the driver sits. And as the bulkheads of F1 cars really aren't all that tall, they really don't leave enough space for suspension like what you see on WEC cars. Also Sauber did a cutaway project a few years back, as I'm sure you remember. And when you spot the suspension/springs on the diagram, you realize that they are in fact, tiny...
Therefore, big changes will have to be made to the front of the cars, in order to incorporate larger suspension.
Not that big of changes refer to above images I've given from Toyota and Porsche 18 inch wheel cars with F1 style suspsension. The only massive change would be overall dimension. Perhaps making the bulk head wider or the entire car longer as well, and it may need to change anyways based on the fact that Active Suspension is in the works to return at the same time these tires are to be used.
And each year the FIA creates a reason that isn't road relevant that already has teams doing that. So it's not that much of a tall order if that's the issue you now have. Which to me seems like "well think about the teams they shouldn't have to work harder for road relevance." If I'm Costa, Newey, Lowe or Green or Tombazis and the teams that work with them getting paid millions and down from there...I think it's fine for them to work that hard if not harder.
Well argue that with Horner and Newey who claim it shares DNA with the RB9 and aero concepts, and the RB9 shared ideas of the RB8 and RB7 and so on. Also technical changes that you've specified are going to happen, you're not going to be able to see from your eyes perspective how much or how little the car has changed. Sorry but I'll take their word on it, for example like the nose the S duct is a carry over and actually a progression over those of the past RB.
Well considering that the operational cost being placed on toward other teams when one team doesn't have their own and borrows. For example Marussia using McLarens and already having a highly up to date CFD thanks to Wirth from the past. The reason we don't see development is because either teams pull stupid moves like Caterham who had plenty of sponsors and money compared to their first season especially...then you have teams like Marussia and Sauber who struggle for sponsors. Then you have teams like STR that are stunted because they're a satellite to the main team. Take your pick, the situation is due to the team more times than a woe is them issue.
Also the limit is due to those teams, they aren't so poor that they can't run the time frames that were created with them in mind. Also I don't know what the costs will be in two years time we know what they are now.
...If you think new tires are as crippling as the new engine regulations or past regulation, you'd be wrong. It was going to cost them more
it was an entirely new engine with electronics added, they agreed to it. Look at history the V8s first season cost far more than the year prior with V10s, and the same goes for the V10s and this year is the same trend. Of course it would cost more and just like before it will begin to cost less with each passing season it is here. I highly doubt it will be that harmful due to examples already given.I don't have any animosity or anger toward you, I have no reason to it's a debate. I'm not an easy person to debate with many know this that have done so. I'm blunt and too the point to try and end it as quick as possible at times, I don't know how though you could convey a tone from my writing. There is no anger just a debate
That's fine, I wouldn't be learning much from my program if I thought any part could enter the track with very minimal testing. But unlike many others at least you could see that we misunderstood one another so that's something to be glad about, rather than making further false claims, so thanks.
Last edited:
Go ahead!
I wouldn't use the Oreca from a few years back and an example and I didn't if you look at my post you see I'm giving
groups like Toyota who have been in F1 an example as F1 knowledge use in LMP1. Also I acknowledge changes will need to be made. However, I don't see why that should be used as opposition to this change for the cars.
The Oreca in the image I used is from 2011, so I don't think that's really all that long ago. Anyhow, I was aware these were the cars you were referring too (the Toyota's and Porsche's); however I was struggling to find images of the internals of the suspension of their cars. You've found some good ones to work from though, so cheers for that...
Looking at the image above, and the image below as well, I get the impression that the suspension WEC cars use is a mix of what we see on F1 cars, and on the Oreca that I posted above. Looking at the bulkhead section of the Toyota above, we can see that it's easily wide enough to accommodate a large spring, laying on its side (as well as this, we can also see it has an F1 style suspension arm setup). Then looking at the internals of the bulkhead section of the Porsche below, and we indeed see a large spring laying on its side.
Now as we're not able to see deep inside the bowels of the Toyota's suspension, I can only speculate if there is indeed a large spring in there, laying on its side; just as there is in the Porsche. The idea makes sense to me however. It explains hower WEC cars can run such low-profile tyres, while being able to asorb the bumps nicely.
I will say however that springs as we see in the Porsche below, wouldn't fit in an F1 car of current design; keeping in mind that the arm below the spring needs to have some length to it. In fact we can see in that cutaway diagram from Sauber I posted, that the suspension springs in F1 cars are in fact, miniscule.
Not that big of changes refer to above images I've given from Toyota and Porsche 18 inch wheel cars with F1 style suspsension. The only massive change would be overall dimension. Perhaps making the bulk head wider or the entire car longer as well, and it may need to change anyways based on the fact that Active Suspension is in the works to return at the same time these tires are to be used.
Significantly lowering the height of the bulkhead might be the best way to do it. Indycar has been using this design for years. It allows for the suspension springs to be mounted on top of the bulkhead (rather than inside it), without obstructing the drivers vision...
For all we know it could well have been an attempt to 'big-up' the RB10 on their part. However I can see some merit in their words. For example the S-duct that you've mentioned, and the floor, while altered from that of the RB9, carries over concepts used before and modifies them slightly to work better with this years aerodynamic package. And of course, the floor is very important to producing downforce, as it channels air to the diffuser. In that sense I can understand how the RB10 shares DNA with its forerunner; and I've missed less obvious details that are also shared. But the main bulk of the exterior aerodynamics just seem too different for me to be able to believe that they're related closely to that of last years car.
Really my concern is if or not the smaller teams will be able to afford to make the changes competitively in two years time; rather than if they'll be able to afford to make them at all.Well considering that the operational cost being placed on toward other teams when one team doesn't have their own and borrows. For example Marussia using McLarens and already having a highly up to date CFD thanks to Wirth from the past. The reason we don't see development is because either teams pull stupid moves like Caterham who had plenty of sponsors and money compared to their first season especially...then you have teams like Marussia and Sauber who struggle for sponsors. Then you have teams like STR that are stunted because they're a satellite to the main team. Take your pick, the situation is due to the team more times than a woe is them issue.
Also the limit is due to those teams, they aren't so poor that they can't run the time frames that were created with them in mind. Also I don't know what the costs will be in two years time we know what they are now.
...If you think new tires are as crippling as the new engine regulations or past regulation, you'd be wrong. It was going to cost them more
I agree the costs of these changes will not even be close to as financially painful as this years changes. And I'm aware that for the top teams, and midfield teams alike, affording them won't be a problem. However what corncerns me, is that if the changes are bought in, in two years time; will the small teams (i.e. Caterham, Marussia; I'll even add Sauber in there, as I'm sure they're struggling technically as they are with their bank account) be able to afford to make the changes competitively? Or will they be limited to doing what Caterham already did this year? Which is modify the design of the previous years car just enough to comply with the rules, and end up with a dog.
So I don't think the changes would be costly enough to put them out of business. But I'd rather the sport wait until about four years time or so, when even the small teams should be able to afford to go all out with radical new designs (mainly at the front end of the cars, but the aerodynamics at the rear will have to match up). As in my mind that's what it will take for teams to properly implement the changes that will surely be needed to remain competitive.
In that case then, my mistake. For whatever reason the wording just seemed abrasive to me; but it really doesn't matter now!
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Go ahead!
Well for example the RB10 which is much easier to explain, you have a nose section with the bulb that has inlets that allow air that would normally flow to the turning vanes on a higher sitting bulkhead and nose configuration. This allows the air to be directed due to simple aerodynamic flow principles correctly around the car. Now the RB10 doesn't allow this due to the new rules like past cars, but with the configuration of the inlets cut on the car at the bottom that feeds directly on the turning vanes they can gain back flow that would normally be compromised due to the lower nose rules this year. Also some other inlets are used to cool electronics like the RB7 did and thus another lesson taken from RB5 series cars.
W05 Hybrid's engineers went a different route to the regulation of the rules which allowed them to have an extension without the bulb and thus keep the opening for airflow. They then improved on this (if that is possible
I agree it wouldn't fit, but that's not the point I'm getting at, I was showing that you can have a method if the rules change to allow it. Thus it is possible. That was all I was trying to prove to you really as the idea that others do it because of some much different style isn't true. And why I still consider F1 a slightly more racing pinnacle than LMP since the big teams take ques from F1.
This never crossed my mind, so I think this would be a great idea, I was sure there was a method that it could be done just didn't know who did it and I believe in the 90s this was the style set up for F1 cars anyways. Yet have memory fade and couldn't solve it. Good job on this part.Significantly lowering the height of the bulkhead might be the best way to do it. Indycar has been using this design for years. It allows for the suspension springs to be mounted on top of the bulkhead (rather than inside it), without obstructing the drivers vision...
I'm just going off what they say, they say it's a derivative of the RB5 family cars thus I put it in with the RB5 family.
The Caterham from what I've read is far different from the 2012/2013 car, I think you're confusing those cars as being the same this is a different car. Also Caterham once again have no one to blame but themselves, they didn't have a racing model for success and like HRT were run by a business man seeing a business and not a sports effort. Same reason his Football team struggles. Fernandes is a good business man just not good at owning Sports teams. Marussia are obviously making progress and Sauber just seem to be falling backwards and may be having issues due to their new leader being a Financial/Business guru and less of a technical runner like Peter.
These teams don't deserve a woe is me, when they're only concern is how to save costs and expecting others to follow, I agree teams shouldn't have massive expenditures that possibly dwarf two or three teams combined. However, it is a prototype Autosport that is basically one big R&D run and R&D is never cheap. If you want to lower that cost that's fine but don't do it to the point where the series becomes just another first rate spec series.
I don't think they would be either, and to be blunt if teams don't have a structure now which Caterham hasn't had since 2010 and what cost HRT to only live to 2012 it's not F1 needing to come to them. It's them needing to come to F1 while still asking for cost cutting, and if they can't figure this out in four years time then what is another additional four years. The idea that potential innovation or road relevance should be halted even when you give teams a timeline to look to and prepare for and they can't get themselves in order... I hate to sound like Bernie but then they don't deserve to be on the grid. You know groups like FI who have struggled and even had to bring in pay drivers have still utilized where Sauber seem to not be able. Williams have started to do the same again as well just took quite a bit longer.
In that case then, my mistake. For whatever reason the wording just seemed abrasive to me; but it really doesn't matter now!
It's fine.
Both are clearly very clever solutions, then! However with the FIA looking to lower the noses even further (from what I understand), I can see Red Bull's solution becoming the norm. That is unless the practice is outlawed.Well for example the RB10 which is much easier to explain, you have a nose section with the bulb that has inlets that allow air that would normally flow to the turning vanes on a higher sitting bulkhead and nose configuration. This allows the air to be directed due to simple aerodynamic flow principles correctly around the car. Now the RB10 doesn't allow this due to the new rules like past cars, but with the configuration of the inlets cut on the car at the bottom that feeds directly on the turning vanes they can gain back flow that would normally be compromised due to the lower nose rules this year. Also some other inlets are used to cool electronics like the RB7 did and thus another lesson taken from RB5 series cars.
W05 Hybrid's engineers went a different route to the regulation of the rules which allowed them to have an extension without the bulb and thus keep the opening for airflow. They then improved on this (if that is possible
That's fair enough. I've seen it before myself too; on the Williams FW15C, I believe it was. Not sure when this setup fell out of favour in F1, however...[/QUOTE]
They're definitely not the same car, but at the same time, the CT05's design does seem rather lazy. Especially at the front. While it looks like they made a token effort to redesign the bulkhead and nose, it also looks as if they gave up halfway through. And mounted an appendage on the underside of the nose to lower it to the height required by the regulations. What makes it really painful is it appears they didn't even try to be clever about it. Again, they made a small effort to direct air under the car, with the turing vains under the nose. But I wonder how much airflow gets to them seeing as the air is directed down the side of the nose at first, rather than under it.
As for the rest of the car, it seems vaguely redesigned here and there; but only just to fit the regulations. It all just seems so unnecessarily bulky; which is never good for aerodynamics. All the other teams have managed to shrinkwrap the bodywork on their cars, but the Caterham isn't that far off being the Ethan Allen Express!
I'm not all that fussy about lowering costs to be honest. I do feel however that making substantial rule changes in another two years, when we've already had such alterations for this season, could hurt the smaller teams. Their finances have survived this years changes...just, and they'd most likely survive if another set of new rules were introduced in 2016. However their finances might currently be rather limited, having had to have spent a lot more money on building brand new cars this season, than in years previous; a large chunk of the money spent being for the engines. So would they be able to afford to design a potentially competitive car, if these changes are made in 2016? Or would they be forced to go down a rather simplistic route?
In four years time I don't think this will be a problem for them but if it is, then tough luck. As you've basically said already, they really should have established themselves more by now. However as much as I agree they don't really deserve to be on the grid, Marussia seems to be finding its feet, and Caterham has new owners that might be able to make the team progress. So it would be a shame not to see what they can both make of it.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
The FIA may ban it or they may not who knows with them. Point is take it from me the nose is the start and very critical in aero design.
As for the suspension set up, I'm not sure if it has to do with the switch from push rod to pull rod front that made this change. If so then it is a very new type deal only a couple years old. I'll try to find out for you since I have a lot of saved documents and what not.
It's a bad job, because now you have a pocket for flow to get caught up in and thus create more drag than if just staying conventional.
As for the rest of the car, it seems vaguely redesigned here and there; but only just to fit the regulations. It all just seems so unnecessarily bulky; which is never good for aerodynamics. All the other teams have managed to shrinkwrap the bodywork on their cars, but the Caterham isn't that far off being the Ethan Allen Express!
Well as I said Fernandes was more interested in the business of running an F1 team than running a team that was competing to win. I mean he has big name software and hardware companies on his car and other companies in the wind tunnel and aero business and then media and other things that would help a team but never seemed to be utilized.
It's not that substantial, what is substantial is the idea of returning back to active suspension or ground effects or other more expensive items than just a tire change. If your concern is a jump in cost in two years then worry about that, this I can pretty much guarantee you will not be do or die or make or break. The other items will be.
To be honest I like all teams I want to see Marussia do more and wanted to see Caterham, but it's the old concept where if you're not making a true effort and then you want to cry and have people bail you out...you only have yourself to blame when they don't come. That was HRT's problem as you are aware of and was close to being Caterham. If you are trying and doing the right moves but the nature of F1's constant change is hurting you then I understand your point, however this hasn't been the case in a long time.
- 21,261
- United States
Simon Pagenaud could potentially be the one to help Honda with their F1 engine development when it comes time to test it on track.
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/106968-f1-indycar-s-pagenaud-closing-in-on-honda-test
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/106968-f1-indycar-s-pagenaud-closing-in-on-honda-test
- 1,516
- Florida
- MARCUSH17
- MARCUSH16
Can't wait to see what upgrades Caterham bring for the CT05 next race. Hopefully a better looking nose.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/magic-paint-to-give-ferrari-power-boost/
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/magic-paint-to-give-ferrari-power-boost/
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Yeah it is silly wording but the concept is anything but, it was first talked about back at the German Grand Prix I believe. It's a shielding that goes over the exhaust and is a carbon cover that Marussia use that Ferrari weren't using, to prevent heat from leaking out (dissipation). Ferrari are going to test a paint coating I guess instead of a structure like MGP and Marussia have. The strange thing is Marussia have had this since Bahrain and it adds more power to the turbine unit, but Ferrari are only now preparing to use it for Spa and Monza...
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack
Premium
- 10,139
- South of the South
- GoldMineGutted
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I read somewhere in an interview with a Caterham engineer that "our ideas budget is unlimited because they're free". A bit sound-bitey but true.
I can't imagine Ferrari hadn't seen this and considered some variation for some time. Maybe it was an idea that was looked at and shelved during the team's internal reshuffling, maybe now somebody remembered the four tins of magic paint in Stefano's drawer?
- 9,554
- Vermont
- catamount39
I'm just anxious to see this new nose on the Caterham lol.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
A fascinating story from Racecar Engineering on the secret development of a Honda chassis, even after Honda withdrew from the sport:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/hondas-secret-f1-car-revealed/
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/hondas-secret-f1-car-revealed/
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Wow this is better than the other secret F1 car articles this one has so much more detail, more so than the Toyota one. I'm not surprised they did this considering the two other secret F1 cars they built and tested back in the 90s before even joining the sport as a race team and not just engine manufacture. Thanks for this PM it will go in the archive folder of all my other F1 and race car engineering related stuff.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I expected them to have done something to prepare, but I wasn't expecting them to have continued the development of the RA109 for years after they withdrew.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I would have for the very reason I specified, this is a third fully built Honda F1 car that did testing and never was used for F1.
- 1,516
- Florida
- MARCUSH17
- MARCUSH16
Ferrari running a insulated manifold design instead of the "magic paint" for the Belgian GP?
http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/40...a-ecco-gli-scarichi-della-ferrari-coinbentati
http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/40...rari-a-spa-riveste-gli-scarichi-con-lo-scotch
Not sure if its a already known simulation practice. Red Bull Pit crew using a RB9 chassis ( with a RB10 nose to pass Scrutineering) powered by a electric motor to simulate pit stops.
Video: http://www.esport3.cat/video/5212771/Els-preparatius-de-Red-Bull-a-Spa-al-videoblog-dAlbert-Fabrega
http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/40...a-ecco-gli-scarichi-della-ferrari-coinbentati
http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/40...rari-a-spa-riveste-gli-scarichi-con-lo-scotch
Not sure if its a already known simulation practice. Red Bull Pit crew using a RB9 chassis ( with a RB10 nose to pass Scrutineering) powered by a electric motor to simulate pit stops.
Video: http://www.esport3.cat/video/5212771/Els-preparatius-de-Red-Bull-a-Spa-al-videoblog-dAlbert-Fabrega
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Yeah, but to spend the better part of six years in development? And with the sheer range of exploratory designs Tochigi created? I was expecting a testing rig to work around the dimensions of the engine.
Similar threads
Latest Posts
-
-
Gran Turismo 7 "February" 2025 Update Prediction & Discussion Thread- Latest: jonoholland29
-
-
-
