Maybe some hot shot can explain why they would leave the surface rough like that.


I'd be grateful.

I believe the theory is that the rough surface maintains a thinner boundary layer, meaning the moving airflow effectively sees a smaller surface to travel over, decreasing effective frontal area and decreasing any blockage effect, as well as allowing airflow to reattach quicker and earlier, with obvious benefits.

However, to me it just looks like less filler/paint/laquer on the removable sections of bodywork (which is likely to be replaced each race) compared to the higher quality sealing, preparation and painting of the monocoque that might last all season (or at least half of it!).

Various people have tried dimples - either like shark skin or like a golf ball, and found that on non-spinning items (i.e. not small balls) or in air (sharks tend to prefer high viscosity mediums like water) then dimples do not provide a benefit. I'm sure it won't stop people trying, and maybe one day (has this day already come?) dimpling will be better for aerodynamics on cars.

Quote from tristancliffe :

However, to me it just looks like less filler/paint/laquer on the removable sections of bodywork (which is likely to be replaced each race) compared to the higher quality sealing, preparation and painting of the monocoque that might last all season (or at least half of it!).

That would be my guess, but thanks for the explaination non the less.

The actual answer is they watched mythbusters (quick search sorry its in french http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU4LLwHoiFk)

Somehow the dimpled area matches pretty well with the engine cover area.

Also:
http://www.racecar-engineering ... led-aerodynamic-surfaces/

http://www.racecar-engineering ... mic-surfaces-reduce-drag/

Both explain the reynolds business pretty well.

lol: http://www.pitpass.com/44034-E ... nes-are-voted-in-tomorrow

17 circuits headed by Australian GP's Ron Walker demanded that the new turbo engines rev up to 18,000 and sound exactly same as the current engines or they will switch to IndyCar... Slightly moot, since IndyCar is going to change to 4-6 cylinder engines starting next year. Also considering that IRL calendar currently has 17 races and two of them are outside North America. Maybe they are serious, but they are making their points in a ridiculous way.

Related or not: http://en.espnf1.com/fia/motorsport/story/52832.html

Audi backed the 4-cylinder engine (not a huge surprise) until it backed out. Also according to Newey the rev limit is still under discussion:

Quote :

"The revs are still being debated, but it looks as if it will probably be around 14,000 or 16,000," he said.

Sometimes its hard to beleive that somewhere in the midst of all the politics, commercialism and precious egos, theres actually some racing going on.

How about they just add some much needed variety and jump in with another "green" engine configuration? Hell, even have a go at the turbocharged straight-5 that Audi made for their Group B Quattro...sounded like heaven!

Quote from deggis :

lol: http://www.pitpass.com/44034-E ... nes-are-voted-in-tomorrow

17 circuits headed by Australian GP's Ron Walker demanded that the new turbo engines rev up to 18,000 and sound exactly same as the current engines or they will switch to IndyCar... Slightly moot, since IndyCar is going to change to 4-6 cylinder engines starting next year. Also considering that IRL calendar currently has 17 races and two of them are outside North America. Maybe they are serious, but they are making their points in a ridiculous way.

Quite ironic considering that Monza and Spa have both been seriously threatened by neighbours for noise issues, not so long ago.

Quote from deggis :

lol: http://www.pitpass.com/44034-E ... nes-are-voted-in-tomorrow

17 circuits headed by Australian GP's Ron Walker demanded that the new turbo engines rev up to 18,000 and sound exactly same as the current engines or they will switch to IndyCar... Slightly moot, since IndyCar is going to change to 4-6 cylinder engines starting next year. Also considering that IRL calendar currently has 17 races and two of them are outside North America. Maybe they are serious, but they are making their points in a ridiculous way.

Related or not: http://en.espnf1.com/fia/motorsport/story/52832.html

Audi backed the 4-cylinder engine (not a huge surprise) until it backed out. Also according to Newey the rev limit is still under discussion:

You have to consider that the Melbourne f1 race is running at a considerable loss due to fees where as a Indy car race will likely result in surplus due to low fee costs.

15000 rpm confirmed: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/media ... 11/Pages/f1-power-qa.aspx

So they're going to sound slightly the same as the turbo engines in the 80's but very slightly beefier and revving higher? I'm in for that

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1- ... rdo-to-race-for-hispania/

Wow. Wasn't expecting that this morning!

Not sure what they expect to see from him though. Worst car on the grid, and he has no experience driving it. How can he do any better than last? And what will that prove?

I guess that's just a way to give him more F1 experience and allow him to be more familiar with the racing-week procedures.

This event isn't even clashing with WSR, can't see how that can be bad for him. IIRC Alguersuari wasn't doing worst results while doing both F1 and WSR at once(in fact he did up his game in WSR after getting the Toro Rosso seat, IIRC).

I hope thats all it is, and its not like if he does badly then he's lost his chance.

That'd be very silly, considering the great stuff Ricciardo has done in WSR and Red Bull F1 testing.

And who even knows if his team-mate could be used as a benchmark. I mean, how can you be sure that HRT has enough ressources to show up with 2 reasonably equal cars?

I think they just want to see how he fairs up to liuzzi, a former Redbull driver himself they know enough about him for them to compare him to.

Funnily enough Vettel was team mate with Liuzzi when he started in STR and allthough he was outpaced for the first few races, he ended up on top, so overall he should be a good bench mark.

how much worse can the sound of a F1 car get?
I want the V12 back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNbgqBnHrMQ

Quote from brutal2 :

how much worse can the sound of a F1 car get?
I want the V12 back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNbgqBnHrMQ

Lovely



Personally I'd love to have V8s, V10s and V12s back on track alltogether. Like in the early 90s. The "GP1" mentality of having everything standardised certainly didn't bring better racing. Plus, if some manufacturers want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year, better have them doing their way.

The Williams Renault returns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/14018777.stm

I know they won't recapture their former glory, but something about that name is still very evocative for me.

Quote from GreyBull [CHA] :

Personally I'd love to have V8s, V10s and V12s back on track alltogether. Like in the early 90s. The "GP1" mentality of having everything standardised certainly didn't bring better racing. Plus, if some manufacturers want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year, better have them doing their way.

This so much. Even the turbo era had plenty of engines to choose from. You'd have everybody making innovative projects for future engines, messing with cylinder layouts and engine materials. Some designs were great, others were pure and utter shite, but that's innovation. I miss this part of F1

FIA bans innovation anyway.

Virgin Racing and McLaren in a technical tie-up.

Might help them get off the back of the grid.

Quote from DarkTimes :

The Williams Renault returns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/14018777.stm

I know they won't recapture their former glory, but something about that name is still very evocative for me.

Say "Williams-Renault" and it will put a smile on your face