FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[scotty]

Nope. Honestly, i can't see how they can get this to work effectively enough to make up all that time, unless they can make that gap going over the sidepods much, MUCH bigger, and i just can't see how they can do that and still fit everything in properly (namely engine and fuel tanks). Admittedly i don't know the regs inside out so there might be some leeway, but i'd assume they've pushed the limits already.

Still, at least they're not in Mercedes' shoes...

What you mean nope, they admitted this trade off.

I mean, nope, it certainly isn't working.

[bud]

Nope. Honestly, i can't see how they can get this to work effectively enough to make up all that time, unless they can make that gap going over the sidepods much, MUCH bigger, and i just can't see how they can do that and still fit everything in properly (namely engine and fuel tanks). Admittedly i don't know the regs inside out so there might be some leeway, but i'd assume they've pushed the limits already.

Still, at least they're not in Mercedes' shoes...

What you mean nope, they admitted this trade off.

I mean, nope, it certainly isn't working.

wonder if they have a plan B on the sidepods? something more conventional if this U shape didnt work.

[Gaz]

Nope. Honestly, i can't see how they can get this to work effectively enough to make up all that time, unless they can make that gap going over the sidepods much, MUCH bigger, and i just can't see how they can do that and still fit everything in properly (namely engine and fuel tanks). Admittedly i don't know the regs inside out so there might be some leeway, but i'd assume they've pushed the limits already.

Still, at least they're not in Mercedes' shoes...

What you mean nope, they admitted this trade off.

I mean, nope, it certainly isn't working.

wonder if they have a plan B on the sidepods? something more conventional if this U shape didnt work.

They must have for Monza at least, since the U Pod's are for the rear wing the rear wing is just drag at monza.

[scotty]

wonder if they have a plan B on the sidepods? something more conventional if this U shape didnt work.

I would imagine they've considered it, if not now then certainly at some point earlier in the design phase of the car, but that said they still think there's potential to be realised in this configuration, so unless that was pure PR talk (and i can't see why it would be really) they'll probably press on with developing this configuration for now at least.

They must have for Monza at least, since the U Pod's are for the rear wing the rear wing is just drag at monza.

I dunno, this design was supposed to optimise the lower part of the rear wing and the diffuser, and that is all essentially 'free' downforce, ie downforce without adding drag. Their problem is they don't have this downforce, i think.

[spankyham]

I think Newey and his team have done a great job with the front wing, look at the flex here, yet, I bet it passes every test.

RB7FrontWingFlex.jpg

@Scotty - Down-force without drag

[Gaz]

wonder if they have a plan B on the sidepods? something more conventional if this U shape didnt work.

I would imagine they've considered it, if not now then certainly at some point earlier in the design phase of the car, but that said they still think there's potential to be realised in this configuration, so unless that was pure PR talk (and i can't see why it would be really) they'll probably press on with developing this configuration for now at least.

They must have for Monza at least, since the U Pod's are for the rear wing the rear wing is just drag at monza.

I dunno, this design was supposed to optimise the lower part of the rear wing and the diffuser, and that is all essentially 'free' downforce, ie downforce without adding drag. Their problem is they don't have this downforce, i think.

But the U-Pods are Fatter surely? the fore increase drag?

[scotty]

wonder if they have a plan B on the sidepods? something more conventional if this U shape didnt work.

I would imagine they've considered it, if not now then certainly at some point earlier in the design phase of the car, but that said they still think there's potential to be realised in this configuration, so unless that was pure PR talk (and i can't see why it would be really) they'll probably press on with developing this configuration for now at least.

They must have for Monza at least, since the U Pod's are for the rear wing the rear wing is just drag at monza.

I dunno, this design was supposed to optimise the lower part of the rear wing and the diffuser, and that is all essentially 'free' downforce, ie downforce without adding drag. Their problem is they don't have this downforce, i think.

But the U-Pods are Fatter surely? the fore increase drag?

Not necessarily, air pressures and speeds at various points along the car have an effect and can circumvent outright dimensions in some cases.

@Scotty - Down-force without drag

That was a pretty simplified way of putting it to avoid a massive explaination. Perhaps a better way of putting it is getting an improved downforce/drag ratio. Hence 'free' downforce, if that makes sense.

[f1ea]

I think Newey and his team have done a great job with the front wing, look at the flex here, yet, I bet it passes every test.

and the rivals go

@Scotty - Down-force without drag

Maybe through some sort of ground effect. Not WITHOUT drag, but at least minimise it. Most of the drag comes from the direct hit of air on the angled wing, if they are able to accelerate the flow underneath the wing and get some sort of ground effect they can minimise drag and still develop a lot of downforce.

[spankyham]

It is very impressive to see the laps being put down by the Torro Rosso, they, along with Sauber are looking serious improvers this year and might even challenge some of the bigger names for track position at some circuits this year.

From Autosport

14:22 A total of 96 laps for the Toro Rosso driver today. He is again on top of the laps chart

14:21 Here's the fastest lap of the afternoon: Buemi posts a 1m23.044s to move up to third

14:20 It appears that Hamilton will go out again soon, after having lost quite some time due to exhaust problems

[f1ea]

But the U-Pods are Fatter surely? the fore increase drag?

Not necessarily, air pressures and speeds at various points along the car have an effect and can circumvent outright dimensions in some cases.

@Scotty - Down-force without drag

That was a pretty simplified way of putting it to avoid a massive explaination. Perhaps a better way of putting it is getting an improved downforce/drag ratio. Hence 'free' downforce, if that makes sense.

There's more efficient methods of creating downforce. That's what they are looking for.
For example: as soon as the car goes faster, there is more absolute drag.... but they dont slow the car down to reduce drag, do they?

[spankyham]

Thanks all for the down-force/drag explanations, I just took the "without" literally.

[spankyham]

Back on the Macca wheelbase comparison, I raised that a while ago, but, you'd have to think it would hurt at Monaco. I was asking at the time why have such a long wheelbase especially as the weight distribution is now regulated.

[texasmr2]

How about this little thingamajig on RB's rear wing.

158.jpg

[Hammer278]

Goodness me...that's a fantastic shot of the rear end of the car. How did they get it so tightly packed!?

[texasmr2]

The RB atleast too me looks so much more.... I cannot even think of a word too describe it but it looks so much more racy than all the other cars.

race%20spec%20red%20bull1.jpg