55ant
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 04:31 PM |
|
|
2010 f1 cars
Renault
Sauber
Ferrari
Mclaren
Mercedes
USF1 - forget the car, look at the size of my power tools
[Edited on 2/2/10 by 55ant]
away from cars, now cycling and building TT bikes
|
|
|
|
|
contaminated
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 04:34 PM |
|
|
I spent ages looking at them all yesterday and have come to the conclusion that I like the Renault and Sauber best. Very retro. The Red Bull is pretty
cool too.
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 04:40 PM |
|
|
I was expecting one of these from the title!
 
Description
|
|
|
martin1973
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 04:51 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by whitestu
I was expecting one of these from the title!
Description
mmmm big soft seats
enough go to scare the sh1t out of most people
my dad had 2 of those top car
martin
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 05:01 PM |
|
|
lol, just found this
brilliant 
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 05:43 PM |
|
|
I'm not uber keen on any of them 
Interesting how quite a few have come up with the channeled nose cone option- they must all be running the same virtual wind-tunnel computers!!
I don't understand why they've banned the double decker diffuser for NEXT year, it would surely have made much more sense to ban it from
the beginning of this year when everyone was totally re-designing the car to take care of a totally different race (ie fuelled to the end from the
beginning). As it is everyone will have designed this years car for the DDD then have to do a re-design for next year.... Seems a bit silly.
And getting rid of them would make for more over-taking as it would prevent cars from having bi-laminar air-flow over the front wing causing
turbulence. A much better idea IMHO than having the "short cuts" that Bernies going on about (having chicanes you can miss out so many
times a race in order to overtake etc), the downside of which is everyone is going to miss them out on the 1st lap, and probably the 2nd, 3rd and
(depending how many times they can miss it), 4th, 5th and 6th!!!
Oh well...
Still reckon the Merc car has the most boring colour scheme of any car in the history of cars. Kind of dull grey/silver with some grey/green for
"interest"!
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
Does anyone geeky enough to read that racecar engineerng mag know what's going on with front suspension geometry nowadays? Alan Staniforth
certainly didn't tell us to do it like that in the Race and Rally Car Source Book . Rear still seems to look 'conventional'
Liam
|
|
|
hicost blade
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
I think the contemporary F1 cars are beautiful pieces of art. The newer they get the better they look (in genral) (forgetting the lotus 49)
Last year the first revision of the Red Bull looked like a proper weapon and very nearly wiped the floor (although I’m glad it didn’t!!)
The brawn looked wonderful as well, I had a look at all the tweeks on the back of the Brawn at Autosport, absolutely amazing piece of kit
This year I think the McLaren is by far the best looking, sleek like and arrow, a very attractive machine.
As the old saying goes; If it looks fast it usually is.........
I enjoy reading the F1 technical forum and finding out about all of the tweeks throughout the year and what they do
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6599&hilit=brake+duct
|
|
|
brianthemagical
|
| posted on 2/2/10 at 11:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
I'm not uber keen on any of them
Interesting how quite a few have come up with the channeled nose cone option- they must all be running the same virtual wind-tunnel computers!!
And getting rid of them would make for more over-taking as it would prevent cars from having bi-laminar air-flow over the front wing causing
turbulence.
What do you mean by channeled nose cone? I'm thinking it's the top surface of the nose area, but not sure.
As for the bi-laminar airflow comment, i'm not sure that your statement is true and if it is true it doesn't nesesarilly hold tight. That
is an assumption based on my knowledge, it may be a case it is perfectly correct, in which case i'd like to know more about it, so not a dig at
the comment. Consequently i'll leave my responce incase i make a fool out of myself.
quote:
Does anyone geeky enough to read that racecar engineerng mag know what's going on with front suspension geometry nowadays? Alan
Staniforth certainly didn't tell us to do it like that in the Race and Rally Car Source Book . Rear still seems to look
'conventional'
I have a subscription to said mag, not sure any current issues wold help with your query but what do you want to know? I'm assuming it's
something to do with the angle of the wishbones.
One of the biggest design criterion in an F1 car is aero, so the wishbone mounts can only be where the aero peeps let them. Other than that it's
about roll centre placement as the low sus movements negate heavy geometry change.
[Edited on 2/2/10 by brianthemagical]
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 3/2/10 at 01:16 AM |
|
|
There is no suspension to speak of, only tyre pressures and compounds. The suspension doesn't do anything from my understanding!
Renault wins. The other presentations were dull dull dull.
|
|
|
brianthemagical
|
| posted on 3/2/10 at 11:33 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RK
There is no suspension to speak of, only tyre pressures and compounds. The suspension doesn't do anything from my understanding!
Renault wins. The other presentations were dull dull dull.
That's not really true. Rules state he sus must move, they then just mega high sping rates, so even though it may be very stiff, it physically
does something.
The wheel rates aren't as high as some people think and sus travel is present. The main problem with just relying on the tyres is that they are
only damped by the rubber.
The tyres need to take the aero load, so have to be vey high rate, more than likel higher than needed. the sus also alters the rake of the chassis,
allowing the aero to ride height mapt to be explored, even if the wheel geo doesn't matter too much.
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 3/2/10 at 12:56 PM |
|
|
Yeah I too was under the impression they actually run some suspension travel nowadays rather than totally rock solid springs. Sure I've even
seen a little body roll on videos! But I guess like you say with such little movement, camber gain curves etc etc are close to irelevant and the
wishbones end up pretty close to parallel and equal length. Obvious now you point it out that the high front wishbone mounts and 'jacked
up' appearance we have now is certainly dictated by the high nosed aero design - should've spotted that myself.
Liam
[Edited on 3/2/10 by Liam]
|
|
|
flibble
|
| posted on 3/2/10 at 01:24 PM |
|
|
My brother in-law is top (I think) of the small team that test/set and help design the Renault F1's suspension at the factory and occasionally
at the trackside, I'll have to ask him for some input on the subject, he talks a lot about it, a lot of which I can't quite grasp but I
remember many conversations about spring settings/stiffness etc. and they certainly do make more difference than I imagined.
As a bonus I've had a couple of walks around the factory, albeit with the actual car only being there on the first occasion, but is an awesome
experience, picked up a rear wheel which weighed bugger all for the size of, poked lots of carbon fibre bits around and got to see how deicate some of
the carbon suspension components were when he tapped them lightly (old ones) on a desk and they shattered immediatly.
Dissapointingly no-one entertained my helpful offer of removing old engines/components/wheels from the factory free of charge, misserable so and
so's! 
|
|
|
