Better test link http://www.f1today.nl/live-upd ... -la-comunitat-valenciana/
All this posting is making me tired lol
All this posting is making me tired lol
Wonder why they are running grooved tires. Makes no sense to me ...
Also, the new narrow front tires look wrong. Horrid.
They're the radio and telemetry antannae.
No, he's talking about the Red Bull pioneered nose cross-section shape, which is to get around the rules for minimum sizes. I think it's quite a nice look actually.
You understood what I was saying!
Hell? Freezing over?
Looks like a unified exhaust port at the back, could be a shadow or reflection though.
Strange Renault rear wing design... Didn't see that before. Maybe they think its a secret weapon? It's quite thick too, rather than the normal paper thin wing element design.
Perhaps a thicker wing is less sensetive to aerodynamic turbulence? 
Well in the official car release, the wing wasn't the same design, so they must think they are on to something.
Ha ha! Don't let it happen again, okay!
Good spot. I think it is a unified exhaust outlet (on the engine cover - I doubt it's a single exhaust pipe at the exit), rather than a reflection.
Maybe they looked at LFS F08 for inspiration :P I thought I was seeing things, but glad that my eyes don't deceive.
The new Williams sounds awesome in that viral video, doesn't it have a cosworth engine now?
Yes.
Sidenote, on the rear of the Saubers side pods, looks very interesting indeed. I'm thinking the exhaust just ends at the back of the pod, leaving the rear suspension really open to the elements.
I bet it makes a nice noise
Zoomed Shot
Don't see how that works aerodynamically. If the void (where the air would separate from the surface of the car and become turbulent, massively increasing drag) is meant to be filled with exhaust gasses, then lifting off the throttle (e.g. into a braking zone) would disrupt everything, causing massive losses of downforce.
But presumably they'd have thought of that. I just don't see any benefits, unless it's forced on them by packaging constraints and bodywork restrictions (i.e. no bodywork allowed in the area near the wheel/wishbones)...
Very odd. No 'splined' nose. But quite a few surfaces are elegant yet complex, which is often a good sign (air seems to like flowing over surfaces that look nice)
But presumably they'd have thought of that. I just don't see any benefits, unless it's forced on them by packaging constraints and bodywork restrictions (i.e. no bodywork allowed in the area near the wheel/wishbones)...
Very odd. No 'splined' nose. But quite a few surfaces are elegant yet complex, which is often a good sign (air seems to like flowing over surfaces that look nice)
I think there's two types of design this year, the splined nose that droops down like Mercedes, Toro Rosso, Ferrari and presumebly the Red Bull too or the rigid smooth nose that extends outwards quite a bit, like the McLaren, Williams and Sauber. The only odd one out is the Renault, because it has a nose that sweeps down, but no splines.
McLaren - diffuser:eye-poppi
http://i.imgur.com/ZTfg0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ZTfg0.jpg
WTH is up with that picture?
+ brightness
+ contrast
+ sharpen
It looks like at least Ferrari and McLaren have produced triple-deck diffusers. Expect more.
Low ambient temperature (only 15 degrees celsius) at the track.
Drivers tend to do only short stints during the early phases of testing, which means there isn't much time to get the tyres up to nominal operating temperature, especially in cool conditions. So they may opt to use intermediate wet tyres so the cars don't behave too horribly as they would using slicks.
Oops. Comprehension fail. Sorry.
EDIT: Actually, I just looked at the RB5 from Singapore last year, and it had the big hole at the back too. But I don't think it's an exhaust outlet, because the RB5 had two exhaust outlets near the rear suspension arms.
Supercritical aerofoils in F1? I don't know. Tristan would probably have more insight into this.
from the side the car really looks toooooo longggggg, almost painful to look at.
Supercritical aerofoils - I've not seen any F1 aero data, but I doubt they are accelerating the air enough to get sufficiently close to transonic or compressible flow of a magnitude to make it work. But maybe they are. Or maybe they've found that even at F1 speeds (and I don't just mean vehicle speeds, but the speed of the air over each surface, which might be markedly different) they provide measurable benefits.
Or maybe it'll flop, being prone to excess drag, premature stalling...
In short - I don't know
Or maybe it'll flop, being prone to excess drag, premature stalling...
In short - I don't know
Blind leading the blind, then. 
One possible explanation I've just thought up is that perhaps Renault were suffering from separation problems at high angles of attack, and by increasing the leading edge radius, they're seeking to overcome it?
In plain English for non-freaks: because F1 cars' rear wings have very extreme curvature, it's easy for the air flowing under the wing to separate from the wing surface because of centrifugal force (ie. as the air flows faster along the curved surface, it wants to "go straight" and detach from the surface). This can sometimes be corrected by making the front edge of the wing thicker (and more rounded), because increasing the thickness lessens the curvature of the wing surface.
This is well and truly out of my league.
Are you talking about the Sauber? I think it might be because of the "shark fin" engine cover. It makes the car look longer than it actually is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSFLASH: Massa cracks the 1:13 mark with 1:12.842. He must be getting fairly close to the car's peak performance by now. 2007 cars were doing low 1:11s.
One possible explanation I've just thought up is that perhaps Renault were suffering from separation problems at high angles of attack, and by increasing the leading edge radius, they're seeking to overcome it?
In plain English for non-freaks: because F1 cars' rear wings have very extreme curvature, it's easy for the air flowing under the wing to separate from the wing surface because of centrifugal force (ie. as the air flows faster along the curved surface, it wants to "go straight" and detach from the surface). This can sometimes be corrected by making the front edge of the wing thicker (and more rounded), because increasing the thickness lessens the curvature of the wing surface.
This is well and truly out of my league.
Are you talking about the Sauber? I think it might be because of the "shark fin" engine cover. It makes the car look longer than it actually is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSFLASH: Massa cracks the 1:13 mark with 1:12.842. He must be getting fairly close to the car's peak performance by now. 2007 cars were doing low 1:11s.
Need to wait afew days for other top drivers to bring the times down.
EDIT: pictures here from the test, http://www.formula1.com/gallery/testing/2010/480.html
Was just looking at the tire diameter in relation to the wheelbase, just looks off, looks more like a limo.
Formula One Season 2010
(1980 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG