FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
User avatar
By cap-dude
#185876
^^^Not so much from what I read. :wink:
Every circuit has an aerodynamic efficiency to drag ratio. If you beat that ratio you go quicker, if your car falls below that ratio you will struggle. Generally you will design a car to perform on the majority of tracks and ignore high-downforce extremes, like Hungary and Monaco, and low-downforce extremes, like Monza.


That quote merely confirms the point that aero efficiency is a key element of a good car...

I assumed it meant aerodynamic efficiency was half the battle. Not saying it's not a key element.

Also, I'd mentioned about car wheelbases before. Apparently the the wheelbases don't differ too much. With McLaren and Ferrari having the longest, Red Bull somewhere in the middle and Virgin having the shortest. But details are scarce. But none the less it will make somewhat of the difference between the cars from race to race this year.

Still a while till the first race though. 24 days seems such a long time to wait.
I'm pretty sure with the engine freeze aerodynamics is the biggest expenditure within F1 development the only exception might of been KERS last year which cost pretty much the same as the new teams budgets. So in my opinion in modern F1 aero efficiency is king to building the best car, just look at the Brawn last year the car was very aero efficient at a lot of circuits so it won the championship. The Red Bull was also very aerodynamically efficient so it won many races on the other hand the MP4-24 at the start of the season was about as aerodynamic as a dustbin so it was s***. Putting down force on a car is easy, putting on down force on a car without causing drag is hard hence why aerodynamic efficiency is so important.


No, I mean you need to strike a balance in terms of aero. Aerodynamic efficiency to drag ratio. In otherwords, where as the Force India was very aero efficient and went well at Spa and Monza, it lacked downforce for places like Singapore.
User avatar
By Frosty
#185901
^^^Not so much from what I read. :wink:
Every circuit has an aerodynamic efficiency to drag ratio. If you beat that ratio you go quicker, if your car falls below that ratio you will struggle. Generally you will design a car to perform on the majority of tracks and ignore high-downforce extremes, like Hungary and Monaco, and low-downforce extremes, like Monza.


That quote merely confirms the point that aero efficiency is a key element of a good car...

I assumed it meant aerodynamic efficiency was half the battle. Not saying it's not a key element.

Also, I'd mentioned about car wheelbases before. Apparently the the wheelbases don't differ too much. With McLaren and Ferrari having the longest, Red Bull somewhere in the middle and Virgin having the shortest. But details are scarce. But none the less it will make somewhat of the difference between the cars from race to race this year.

Still a while till the first race though. 24 days seems such a long time to wait.
I'm pretty sure with the engine freeze aerodynamics is the biggest expenditure within F1 development the only exception might of been KERS last year which cost pretty much the same as the new teams budgets. So in my opinion in modern F1 aero efficiency is king to building the best car, just look at the Brawn last year the car was very aero efficient at a lot of circuits so it won the championship. The Red Bull was also very aerodynamically efficient so it won many races on the other hand the MP4-24 at the start of the season was about as aerodynamic as a dustbin so it was s***. Putting down force on a car is easy, putting on down force on a car without causing drag is hard hence why aerodynamic efficiency is so important.


No, I mean you need to strike a balance in terms of aero. Aerodynamic efficiency to drag ratio. In otherwords, where as the Force India was very aero efficient and went well at Spa and Monza, it lacked downforce for places like Singapore.

You seem to have some terms slightly mixed up. Aerodynamic efficiency is how much down-force you get for the amount of drag. Aerodynamic efficiency is a ratio of down force against drag. So you don't get a ratio of aerodynamic efficiency against drag.
What I believe you meant to say is that the teams need to strike a balance between drag and down-force, which as I mentioned earlier equals the Aerodynamic efficiency of the car.
User avatar
By headless
#186003
Slightly boring.. but anyone know why Lotus have blue wheel nuts on the right & red ones on the left? :lurker:

I'm not sure.
Alot of my model cars from 2005> have this set up of wheel nuts.
Never found out why though.
User avatar
By Jensonb
#186026
Slightly boring.. but anyone know why Lotus have blue wheel nuts on the right & red ones on the left? :lurker:

It's probably just a positioning thing.
User avatar
By scotty
#186578
I must say, the current Renault colour scheme is starting to grow on me... :)
By Cubejam
#186616
I can do one better on the photoshop front.

ATTENTION The Welsh buy Force India.
Kinda like a Red Bull Force India.... with a dragon instead of a bull

Image
Last edited by Cubejam on 22 Feb 10, 20:27, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By LifeW12
#186624
Slightly boring.. but anyone know why Lotus have blue wheel nuts on the right & red ones on the left? :lurker:


If they get mixed up they know what side of the car they're meant to go on. The threads must be different for each side of the car so they can't be swapped around.
By Cubejam
#187899
I guess its ok to bring this thread back up again...

lhrt2010car03.jpg

lhrt2010car03.jpg


Dull & boring. But the shape is good & is well developed. Would have been the best team if they didn't have rookies.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
By Robert182
#187953
I can do one better on the photoshop front.

ATTENTION The Welsh buy Force India.
Kinda like a Red Bull Force India.... with a dragon instead of a bull

Image


thats awesome :D
  • 1
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43

See our F1 related articles too!