Lotus looks pretty stumpy/ugly to me.
What he said.
OK, its not "ugly", but no where near the best looking.
The Lotus looks good on first sight, but then you realize it looks very much like a Lotus F1 from the 90ies - I wonder if it's aerodynamically as sound as their competitors'..
I don't see where everyone's getting this from, it dosen't look particularly backwards aerodynamically to me. 
The only thing that stands out are the rather large and simple sidepods, but simplicity is often a good thing.
The only thing that stands out are the rather large and simple sidepods, but simplicity is often a good thing.
simplicity may be, but boxes don't usually do well in a wind tunnel.
The americans sure disagree
Well, the Americans disagree with the world and common sense on many things.
they're probably trying to make something radical out of this...but I stick with your opinion there, there's no way a square thing like that can generate proper airflow. I really hope this isn't another gorgeous but shitty kind of car.
it is a bit worrying, if it was just about drag it wouldn't be an issue (and don't forget an 80's VW van was more aerodynamic than a porsche 928 ) but the name of the game is airflow management and simple really doesn;t cut the mustard (or the aair) these days.
in their favour they may have gone for making sure they have no packaging issues that can affect reliability at first and then be looking to improve the aero once they can get some mile son it. also the fact they use a wind tunnel means they are using proven tech, if virgin find they are struggling they may have difficulty in correcting any aero faults just by CFD when it was the CFD that generated the design in the first place
in their favour they may have gone for making sure they have no packaging issues that can affect reliability at first and then be looking to improve the aero once they can get some mile son it. also the fact they use a wind tunnel means they are using proven tech, if virgin find they are struggling they may have difficulty in correcting any aero faults just by CFD when it was the CFD that generated the design in the first place
Its not a box though, just because it has a flat top, also don't forget that it has a gaping air intake at one end of it.
What I mean is you can't always work out how aerodynamically efficient something is by simply looking at it. If it was that easy then there would be no need for CFD and wind tunnels.
Quite true but the flat surface on the top and sides goes against the thinking of basically the rest of the grid. Now i dunno about you but the guy in the corduroys doesn't usually get as many girls as the guy in the jeans
I am rather impressed by Virgin so far. They have had some reliability issues but the fastest time they posted so far was juat above 3 seconds off the fastest time posted by McLaren. For a car that is done purely in CFD, and havent had any proper running, it was rather impressive. I was expecting them to be 4-5seconds off but they have done a pretty good job so far.
True, but just like F1, a lot of it really depends on how much money they have.
Well, Lotus is that bum who sits outside the club getting puked on with his dog.
The flat upper surface of the sidepod could create more lift, as the air will want to separate after a while (even in a straight line - air does strange things, and doesn't like not doing anything), but it depends how the air is fed to and taken from it. Around the sides it is quite simple, with the undercut blending out sooner than on most cars, but again that is still probably 99% of the way there.
Remember - new team; just being on the grid and within a few seconds of the pace is a damn good effort. They aren't expecting to come out with something that rivals the complexity of a McLaren!
Remember - new team; just being on the grid and within a few seconds of the pace is a damn good effort. They aren't expecting to come out with something that rivals the complexity of a McLaren!
I might be a noob to those aerodynamic things, but i don't understand how can they look so different to each other.. Isn't there some general 'formula' on what's a good design and what's not? I know that's not true, but to me it seems like little kids experimenting and hoping it will turn out good Just look at the nose designs for example.. or those little sidepods things..
Just look at the nose designs for example.. or those little sidepods things..They don't look all that different. More restrictive regulations as well as advancements of aerodynamic understanding mean they all come out fairly similar. Just compare today's difference in car design to the difference of the 70s 80s and 90s
However, aerodynamics is still a bit of a black art hence why guys like Adrian Newey are so valued. Of course there is no set formula that works because the amount of aero affecting variables is massive.
Just injecting that today was February 15th, the start of the second half of February, and USF1 claimed their car would be on track for the debut sometime early February.
Seeing as it hasn't been seen on track, how early do you think is 'early'?
Seeing as it hasn't been seen on track, how early do you think is 'early'?
Sounds like something we already experienced.
I just hope the fact they are looking at getting two pay drivers for their opening season isn't a sign of their financial situation. If you look at Virgin and Lotus they both have driver line ups which show they are serious and in a decent financial position (at the moment anyay). Bernie could be right after all... I hope not
:uglyhamme
USF1:
...whatever that means...
...whatever that means...
Perhaps they've shifted enough toasters to fund something.
O fak 
Formula One Season 2010
(1980 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG