Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Williams-FW35-sidepod_2902910.jpg

Williams-FW35-sidepod_2902910.jpg

http://www.planetf1.com/photo-gallery/8509639/A-Look-At-Williams-FW35#photo=10

Williams and Caterham may have to drop the controversial vanes that sit in the 'Coanda channel' of their 2013 Formula 1 cars after being advised that the FIA considers them to be illegal.

The new Williams FW35 features a two-part vane behind the exhaust, mounted at the top of the U-shaped channel into which the exhaust pipes exit, while Caterham has a similar one-piece part placed a little lower.

Technical director Mike Coughlan was adamant that the part is legal when asked about it in the wake of the car being unveiled on Tuesday morning.

He believes the fact that the vane is in two parts makes it permissible, whereas he sees the Caterham design as illegal because it is a single piece and fully encloses the Coanda channel.

But the Williams team has confirmed that the FIA approached it on Tuesday morning to express its view that the design, along with that of Caterham, is illegal.

The FIA insists that an exhaust's primary purpose must not be to affect the aerodynamic performance of the car, a stipulation governed by a combination of the technical regulations and private technical directives issued to the teams.

In order to ensure this is not happening, it deems that the sides of the Coanda channels are not allowed to converge in any way, meaning that they must be vertical or slope outwards.

Exhaust gases are allowed to have an incidental aerodynamic effect, but what Williams and Caterham have attempted is understood to be seen as overstepping the mark.

Despite the FIA's concerns, its current position is only advisory and both teams can continue to run their designs during testing, which is unregulated beyond safety standards.

Should they continue to run them once the season starts, the FIA is able to refer the matter to race stewards for consideration.

When contacted about the situation, a spokesperson told AUTOSPORT: "The team spoke with the FIA this morning (they approached us), which is when they gave us their view.

"The team are now seeking further clarification on this and a decision as to whether this design will be carried forward will be made before the first race."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105623

Times
1 Sergio Perez McLaren 1m21.848s 97 Soft
2 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull 1m22.197s +0.349 84 Soft
3 Kimi Raikkonen Lotus 1m22.697s +0.849 43 Medium
4 Lewis Hamilton Mercedes 1m22.726s +0.878 121 Hard
5 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 1m23.247s +1.399 76 Medium
6 Valtteri Bottas Williams 1m23.561s +1.713 98 Soft
7 Daniel Ricciardo Toro Rosso 1m23.718s +1.870 70 Medium
8 Paul di Resta Force India 1m23.971s +2.123 62 Medium
9 Nico Hulkenberg Sauber 1m24.205s +2.357 88 Medium
10 Max Chilton Marussia 1m25.115s +3.267 67 Soft
11 Charles Pic Caterham 1m26.243s +4.395 102 Medium

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8512691/Perez-hits-the-front-in-Barcelona

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...