![Image](http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/2005/tests10/diapo_120.jpg)
More tight sidepods...
![Image](http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/2005/tests10/diapo_116.jpg)
More pics here @ F1 Live
I don't know if this is a real answer, but its my first thought as to why F1 cars arn't dimpled....Scottie wrote:yeah sidepods are becoming the biggest change to the cars this year... But I just wondered...
well why do golf balls have those dimples in them? because they are more efficient at cutting through the air. I'm surprised that this hasn't been tried on an f1 cars nose / sidepod, being the biggest areas for wind resistance.
appart from that, they have carried across that slit in the rear wing just under the final wing pane there. I always thought there was some kind of flexibility there but I dunno... maybe is changes the air pressure amongst the winglets.
either way, looks prety good, I hope they have some good results too this year.
aargh! who to chose to challenge ferrari! nfi!
I don't believe there is a minimum overall length. The wheelbase ends up becoming a function of fitting in the driver (who's feet must be behind the axle line of the front wheels), then the fuel cell, then engine and finally gearbox.ORt Sin wrote:Does F1 have rules on the length of the car? if no, then what would happen with a shorter wheelbase? they just seem awkwardly large.... sorry please forgive a n00b.....
Are you just assuming or do you know?Montey wrote:I think the lengthening of the wheelbase comes down to an aerodynamics issue again.
The older cars of the eighties were much wider than todays cars, and much shorter. Yet they pack the same core components in to the same basic area. But a wider car presents more frontal surface area that has to penetrate the air, and thus a wider car creates more resistence through the air requiring a larger engine to go fast.
By lengthening the car they could pack all of the required items in to a narrower car, meaning less surface area is presented head-on to the air. A great, extreme example of this can be seen in land-speed record cars. In the 1940s the cars were all wheel driven and were essentially maxed out sports cars. Over the years the cars themselves have got thinner and thinner but longer and longer. The more recent landspeed record cars are essentially a thin body, very needle like, jamed between two huge jet engines. As a result very little flat surface is presented to the oncoming air.
The longer body probably also assists in smoothing the air over the rear wing assembly. If the rear wing was close to the front of the car the moving air would have little or no time to settle out (from turbulance) before being hit by the rear wing. This would mean the rear wing would be significantly less efficient. As air hit the rear wing it would already be disturbed and be eddying about. By lengthening the body of the car the air meets a period of stability with nothing disturbing it before passing across the rear wing. But this too may be wrong.
I know that land speed record cars are getting longer and thinner to present a lower, smaller profile to the flow of air at the front.w00dsy wrote:Are you just assuming or do you know?Montey wrote:I think the lengthening of the wheelbase comes down to an aerodynamics issue again.
The older cars of the eighties were much wider than todays cars, and much shorter. Yet they pack the same core components in to the same basic area. But a wider car presents more frontal surface area that has to penetrate the air, and thus a wider car creates more resistence through the air requiring a larger engine to go fast.
By lengthening the car they could pack all of the required items in to a narrower car, meaning less surface area is presented head-on to the air. A great, extreme example of this can be seen in land-speed record cars. In the 1940s the cars were all wheel driven and were essentially maxed out sports cars. Over the years the cars themselves have got thinner and thinner but longer and longer. The more recent landspeed record cars are essentially a thin body, very needle like, jamed between two huge jet engines. As a result very little flat surface is presented to the oncoming air.
The longer body probably also assists in smoothing the air over the rear wing assembly. If the rear wing was close to the front of the car the moving air would have little or no time to settle out (from turbulance) before being hit by the rear wing. This would mean the rear wing would be significantly less efficient. As air hit the rear wing it would already be disturbed and be eddying about. By lengthening the body of the car the air meets a period of stability with nothing disturbing it before passing across the rear wing. But this too may be wrong.
I WISH!!!!!!!w00dsy wrote:Just curious is why i ask, you seem to be quite interested in the way a car is built. Thought you might have some knowlegdge on the subject from a professional standpoint.
in your general direction maybe.Blitzer wrote:Perhaps a member of "Team FARTS" ?
Flatulence
And
Rear-end
Testing
Society