Forget about about weight distribution improvement, it is fixed by the technical rules for this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Printable View
Forget about about weight distribution improvement, it is fixed by the technical rules for this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Some interesting pics here, but still no explanation!
http://translate.google.com/translat...agione-2011%2F (Italian -English translation)
Well , if there is a space for KERS , and you replaced this weight with a flat plate that weighed the same , it would mean that weight has much less height , offering a much lower CoG .Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
That would be better weight distribution , would it not ?
On the vertical it would, yes, but not on the horizontal. What the stipulation re front/rear weight rule attempts to achieve is to negate the benefit of not running KERS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Anyroad, I would hazard a guess that the Red Bull will chew its tyres with KERS in regular use......
I thought it was more to do with the tyres - to give Pirelli a fixed spec to design to, and prevent some teams lucking into weight distribution that particularly suited tyres while others got it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Just as Lewis splitter, RB dont need the use of the front wingor KERS in the race or even at the start, They will vin anyhow.
Ofcourse, MacLaren will protest as usual, why are they faster then us whitout a frontwing!!
I know it's not on the horizontal .Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
That would be why I stated that it would have a lower CoG . Pay attention , Wilco .
You may be right about those tires , but I think the roll , due to the higher CoG when they do run KERS , will have greater effect .
That nose section is bending down equally across the wing , and the endplates are dragging .
Drag just the outside and you have , firstly , friction outside , where you don't want drag , as it tends to keep you going straight .
Then , you have the inside lifting , and the loss in comparison with the outside downforce .
The suspension will need to be harder to deal with the roll .
And that's harder on tires .
Im in the middle of studying for my Aeronautical Engineering HNC, part of which covers aerodynamics and wing morphing using various means..
For talking sake.... would a morphing nose cone or wing containing either a veritex (Tm) composite layer also containing a heating element for softening or piezo electric ceramic layer (PZT) activated by an electric pulse to shape change still be technically within the rules considering it would not be actively adjusted.. merely softened?
The advantages are obvious.. on the straight at high speed the drag of a simple flexable nose would be eliminated yet when softening or morping, directly or indirectly (brake activation?) activated the means of providing the extra downforce you'd have the best of both worlds. (May also explain the Red bulls start line only Kers?)
Its probably something far, far simpler than that but thats probably an area Id explore if I was Mike Gascoyne.. but then thats probably why Im not!.. :D
Opinions on the possibilities and bending (pardon the terrible pun) of the technical regs ?
Interesting ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zico
Not sure about the heating element idea as that would mean quite a few heating - cooling cycles per lap and I do not know if it would be practical.
The PZT would need to be adjusted in real time otherwise the car's aero performance would be compromised, and real time adjustment is forbidden.
Well it all depends on the weight and placement of KERS. And unless Kers is placed very high, which it isn't, I think we can not talk about ' a much lower COG'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan