New Renault R25

pixelboy · Post by **pixelboy** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:21 pm

Looks like the new Renault got the old discarded Mclaren skinny nose. Lets hope they can keep up last years good form.

More tight sidepods...

More pics here @ F1 Live

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:34 pm

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!

Rots · Post by **Rots** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:42 pm

wtf, it looks retarded

Montey · Post by **Montey** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:22 pm

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 know if this is a real answer, but its my first thought as to why F1 cars arn't dimpled....

Basically a golf ball is not attempting to manipulate the flow of air across its surface in any overly sophisticated way. The dimples on the golfball allow for the air to move evenly across the surface of the ball with the least possible resistance, thereby allowing the greatest posible travel distance.

On an F1 car however the air is being used as a tool to keep the car firmly planted on the ground, and whats more to increase its resistence to latteral loads by increasing grip through corners. If the surface of the F1 car was textured with the purpose of reducing drag to its absolute minimum then things like the wing effect, ground effect, and other airodynamic properties would not function, as the air would simply pass over the surface and not apply force to the surface.

Also, unlike a golf ball, you can't wipe down the car in mid race to empty the dimples of all the crap that builds up in them. By the end of the race all these dimples would be holding oil, rubber, dirt, blood, bits of Zanardi (*pukes*) and would dramatically incease the wind resistence.

Anyway, thems my thoughts on why not.

Rots · Post by **Rots** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:55 pm

no matter what, it still looks retarded

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:56 pm

lol, yeah good points mont

thanks for explaining

breakneck · Post by **breakneck** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:57 pm

The shape of a golf ball (a sphere) isn't very aerodynamic, and pushes a lot of air for it's overall size. A golf ball has dimples to increase the turbulence in the air which it is passing through, which reduces the occurence of an 'eddie' forming behind the ball, giving the flying ball a smaller wake in the air, reducing drag. The dimples are also only in the patterns they are because of the ball having no particular orientation. A car doesn't have this problem, as it is always going forwards (you'd hope

). There would be more efficient methods of decreasing the drag of a car than covering it with dimples in my opinion

edit: and yeah, I think Montey is correct in saying that dimples on the wings would decrease their pushing power.

spoonsports · Post by **spoonsports** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:13 am

yeah i have to agree with rots....it looks retarded....whats with the front wing looking like a V
from the front..it seriously looks like a V

Exar Kun · Post by **Exar Kun** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:11 am

spoonsports wrote:yeah i have to agree with rots....it looks retarded....whats with the front wing looking like a V
from the front..it seriously looks like a V

Blame Max for that one.

SamC · Post by **SamC** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:21 am

That is retarded, looks all deformed on the side, and the front is out of proportion

c.j · Post by **c.j** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:28 am

Makes sence Montey... im an F1 n00b... been watching bikes all my life, but if you guys talk bout this stuff much more, you'll get me hooked, i love the techy side of motorsport....

I have a question then...

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.....

Exar Kun · Post by **Exar Kun** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:52 am

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.....

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.

You're right that the wheelbase is currently very long - and that's even though the current trend is towards shorter wheelbases. The Williams of 2002 and earlier and the 2003 Ferrari had quite long wheel bases. It's all made to look a lot worse because of the current narrow track cars - only 1800mm. A shorter wheelbase generally provides a more nimble car at the expense of high speed stability.

w00dsy · Post by **w00dsy** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:09 pm

Most teams lengthened the wheel base back in about 98 i think it was when the cars were made more narrow. Some of them had to change to the longer wheel base part of the way through the year, generally by adding a spacer to the gearbox. I don't work in a wind tunnel so i can't tell you why, but if even those guys didn't figure it out at the start of the year with all the info they have then i'll be buggered if i could tell you why. It was related to the balance of the car though.

w00dsy · Post by **w00dsy** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:11 pm

For anyone that's interested in the technical know how of F1 and other classes of racing, go to your local news agents and see if they have Racecar Engineering. It's a great mag for the technical minded.

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:44 pm

eah it's a great engineering mag, but damn it's tough on the pocket...

Montey · Post by **Montey** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:04 pm

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.

w00dsy · Post by **w00dsy** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:32 pm

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.

Are you just assuming or do you know?

Bacchulum · Post by **Bacchulum** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:54 pm

http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesan ... 4/479.html
FIA technical regulations (laymans terms)

Montey · Post by **Montey** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:47 pm

w00dsy wrote:
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.
Are you just assuming or do you know?

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.

I am assuming some relationship exists between this and the reason F1 cars are getting longer and skinnier.

w00dsy · Post by **w00dsy** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:33 pm

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.

Montey · Post by **Montey** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:08 pm

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.

I WISH!!!!!!!

Nah, am just adicted to F1.

Blitzer · Post by **Blitzer** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:11 pm

Perhaps a member of "Team FARTS" ?

Flatulence
And
Rear-end
Testing
Society

Montey · Post by **Montey** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:45 pm

Blitzer wrote:Perhaps a member of "Team FARTS" ?

Flatulence
And
Rear-end
Testing
Society

in your general direction maybe.

That'd be right after I blew my nose at you.

c.j · Post by **c.j** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:54 am

You silly english Kaa-nigget....

Thanks by the way... it clarifies it abit...

Im curious to know when it becomes counter productive... i mean, there must be a limit to what you can do with F1...

Are we near it? or is there something else?

Bikes are coming along at an great rate, and its very exciting to watch them develop, and at least Rossi had the balls to get off the worlds best bike, with the worlds best funded team, and goto another manufacturer...

Of course everyone says, well y not shuey? and y not shuey?

F1 to me represents how motorsport can become too much of a business... not enuff about the spectacle...

Anyway thanks mont and the rest of the lads for the info