planetf1.com

so what do you all think i don't see it as a game changer but may keep them in q2 now hrt is gone
sems all the big guns will moan or copy it



http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... y_of_2013/

The design may fall foul of article 5.8.4 of the 2013 Technical regulations which state that.

Once the exhaust tailpipes, the bodywork required by Article 3.8.4 and any apertures permitted by Article 3.8.5 have been fully defined there must be no bodywork lying within a right circular truncated cone which :

a) Shares a common axis with that of the last 100mm of the tailpipe.

b) Has a forward diameter equal to that of each exhaust exit.

c) Starts at the exit of the tailpipe and extends rearwards as far as the rear wheel centre line.

d) Has a half-cone angle of 3° such that the cone has its larger diameter at the rear wheel centre line.

Furthermore, there must be a view from above, the side, or any intermediate angle perpendicular to the car centre line, from which the truncated cone is not obscured by any bodywork lying more than 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line.

No formal protest can be lodged yet as in testing the full regulations do not apply. More follows

The second question is whether Caterham intend to use it when Melbourne rolls around? Who knows, right now they can run it in testing, and without a doubt Charlie Whiting and his staff have informed the team on their opinion on it's legality.

It was mentioned on Teds notebook earlier as Lotus were calling it in to question BUT he also mentioned some stuff about one team introducing double drs, had people round and never caught it properly then the dog sat on the remote so I couldn't rewind.

Surely any form of ddrs is banned this season? Anyone know what he was referring to?

Think he said Lotus had DDRS with them to test tommorow?

I think, iirc, that Lotus' DDRS system is passive, so that circumvents the rules a little.
I think.

do the cars have to comply with rules during testing ?

Here's the piece of kit that is considered "controversial" by some. It is a vane (probably metal) that sits across the exhaust "tunnel".
My personal opinion is that Caterham are using it only to direct the exhaust flow to a specific area to learn where the exhaust should go, then once they have determined the path they want the exhaust to flow, will design and construct bodywork to match their testing results. This is a much cheaper and easier method to do than build different versions of body work to find out where they want the exhaust to flow.

BBC F1 technical analyst Gary Anderson in Jerez

"There has been a bit of a discussion about the exhaust exit on the Caterham and whether it complies with the regulations. The rules say the exhaust exit has to point upwards at 10 degrees and in towards the centre of the car at between 0-10 degrees. But the teams want the gases down in the area where the floor meets the rear wheels to improve aerodynamics. So all the cars have channels beyond the exhaust exit that use something called the Coanda effect to attach the gases to a bodywork surface that slopes downwards in that direction. The issue with the Caterham is that it has a small turning vane - aerodynamically shaped piece of bodywork - in that channel to try to enhance the effect. But it is an area where the rules have all sorts of restrictions that basically ban turning vanes. It's a grey area because there is an exhaust exit there but the rules still say you can't have aerodynamic devices there. We'll have to see how that pans out. But I'm not even sure it will be a benefit. That's because you want the exhaust flow to have as much energy in it as possible to have the greatest effect at the floor. Putting that turning vane in might help its direction in simulations but it will reduce its energy."