F60 - illegal?
Discussion
apparently the regulations state:
so clearly, a vertical cross section through the area with the exhaust pipes is not one continuous surface... interesting. I guess we need the precise wording (are exhausts bodywork? Does it mean the whole car must form one continuous surface?
said:
As ever the wording is convoluted: it stipulates that any vertical cross section must form one continuous tangent curve on its external surface with a minimum radius of 75mm. In practice any sharp corners (i.e., with radii less than 75mm) are banned, which means an end to the detailed flow conditioners we see in this region today. Apertures are prohibited except to accommodate the suspension and exhausts, which prevent louvers and any opening of the bodywork for cooling.
(from http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/01/18/how-the-f1-r... )so clearly, a vertical cross section through the area with the exhaust pipes is not one continuous surface... interesting. I guess we need the precise wording (are exhausts bodywork? Does it mean the whole car must form one continuous surface?
there is also the issue of the vertical piece holding up the wing mirrors.
taken from here http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Mark_Hughe...
taken from here http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Mark_Hughe...
Mark Hughes said:
That barge board area is where the Ferrari has apparently stolen a march on its rivals.
Some have suggested that the tall vertical fin ahead of the F60’s sidepods that doubles up as a wing mirror support is against the spirit of the ’09 regulations, which were supposed to have put an end to such devices in the interests of creating a cleaner wake and therefore making overtaking easier.
A section of bodywork zones was created in the regulations in which such devices were outlawed.
But Ferrari, by moving the sidepods further back, has created a narrow ‘blind spot’ not covered in the regulations, into which it has inserted this fin that in the process of creating more downforce will also give it a more choppy airflow wake.
Some have suggested that the tall vertical fin ahead of the F60’s sidepods that doubles up as a wing mirror support is against the spirit of the ’09 regulations, which were supposed to have put an end to such devices in the interests of creating a cleaner wake and therefore making overtaking easier.
A section of bodywork zones was created in the regulations in which such devices were outlawed.
But Ferrari, by moving the sidepods further back, has created a narrow ‘blind spot’ not covered in the regulations, into which it has inserted this fin that in the process of creating more downforce will also give it a more choppy airflow wake.
DangerousMike said:
apparently the regulations state:
so clearly, a vertical cross section through the area with the exhaust pipes is not one continuous surface... interesting. I guess we need the precise wording (are exhausts bodywork? Does it mean the whole car must form one continuous surface?
In that case the McLaren, Renault, Toyota and Williams are also illegal, since if you take a vertical section across the cars in the region of their exhausts, the top of the 'shark fin' or airbox edge is less than 75mm radius in all cases, as are the floor edges. You'd need an exact copy of the rules and a decent understanding of engineering to make any sensible comments. I think this is simply a question of someone commenting on rules that they don't fully comprehend, or at least presenting the wording of the rules non-verbatim and then making their own incorrect interpretations. said:
As ever the wording is convoluted: it stipulates that any vertical cross section must form one continuous tangent curve on its external surface with a minimum radius of 75mm. In practice any sharp corners (i.e., with radii less than 75mm) are banned, which means an end to the detailed flow conditioners we see in this region today. Apertures are prohibited except to accommodate the suspension and exhausts, which prevent louvers and any opening of the bodywork for cooling.
(from http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/01/18/how-the-f1-r... )so clearly, a vertical cross section through the area with the exhaust pipes is not one continuous surface... interesting. I guess we need the precise wording (are exhausts bodywork? Does it mean the whole car must form one continuous surface?
Cheers.
regs said:
3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below
must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not
contain any radius less than 75mm :
- the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear
face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face
of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of
the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm
above the reference plane.
The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel
centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any
vertical surfaces which lie normal to the centre line of the car.
I think this has been interpreted wrong by Ferrarimust form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not
contain any radius less than 75mm :
- the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear
face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face
of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of
the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm
above the reference plane.
The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel
centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any
vertical surfaces which lie normal to the centre line of the car.
edit: especially as:
regs said:
1.4 Bodywork :
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except cameras, camera
housings and the parts definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission
and running gear. Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of the bodywork.
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except cameras, camera
housings and the parts definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission
and running gear. Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of the bodywork.
Edited by DangerousMike on Monday 19th January 21:33
zac510 said:
Mr_Thyroid said:
Sounds ok to me... "except suspension and exhaust". The suspension is allowed to stick out of the bodywork so why shouldn't the exhaust.
It doesn't say suspension and exhaust are allowed to protrude, it only says apertures are allowed to accomodate them.DangerousMike said:
regs said:
3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below
must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not
contain any radius less than 75mm :
- the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear
face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face
of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of
the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm
above the reference plane.
The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel
centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any
vertical surfaces which lie normal to the centre line of the car.
I think this has been interpreted wrong by Ferrarimust form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not
contain any radius less than 75mm :
- the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear
face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face
of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than
100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of
the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm
above the reference plane.
The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel
centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any
vertical surfaces which lie normal to the centre line of the car.
edit: especially as:
regs said:
1.4 Bodywork :
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except cameras, camera
housings and the parts definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission
and running gear. Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of the bodywork.
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except cameras, camera
housings and the parts definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission
and running gear. Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of the bodywork.
Edited by DangerousMike on Monday 19th January 21:33
Cheers.
"1.4 Bodywork :
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except cameras, camera
housings and the
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of the bodywork. "
Surely then that should be ...radiators and exhausts are *NOT* considered to... (since they are definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine)? I'd even consider the 'airbox' to be the duct leading to the inlet trumpets which is covered by the removable 'airbox cover' which *is* obviously part of the bodywork.
Cheers.
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except cameras, camera
housings and the
- parts definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of the bodywork. "
Surely then that should be ...radiators and exhausts are *NOT* considered to... (since they are definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine)? I'd even consider the 'airbox' to be the duct leading to the inlet trumpets which is covered by the removable 'airbox cover' which *is* obviously part of the bodywork.
Cheers.
Edited by dr_gn on Monday 19th January 22:01
Let us all hope that either the Ferrari is legal (as in, really legal, not Mosley legal), or, if it isn't, that they readily accept that they got it wrong.
Now that the teams are finally unified, it would be a pity if an honest misunderstanding were to begin to split them.
It would hardly be a shock if Mosley were to try to exploit any difference of interpretation.
Now that the teams are finally unified, it would be a pity if an honest misunderstanding were to begin to split them.
It would hardly be a shock if Mosley were to try to exploit any difference of interpretation.
dr_gn said:
DangerousMike said:
ok, it says you can add a single aperture each side for exhausts.
surely a hole for a pipe to go through is two apertures:
1. the hole in the bodywork
2. the hole in the pipe
Not if the hole *is* the exhaust (integral with a body panel).surely a hole for a pipe to go through is two apertures:
1. the hole in the bodywork
2. the hole in the pipe
Cheers.
DangerousMike said:
dr_gn said:
DangerousMike said:
ok, it says you can add a single aperture each side for exhausts.
surely a hole for a pipe to go through is two apertures:
1. the hole in the bodywork
2. the hole in the pipe
Not if the hole *is* the exhaust (integral with a body panel).surely a hole for a pipe to go through is two apertures:
1. the hole in the bodywork
2. the hole in the pipe
Cheers.
Cheers.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff