|
| Site Partners: | SpotterGuides | Veloce Books |
| Related Sites: | Your Link Here |
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
28 Apr 2004, 04:38 (Ref:954111)
|
#1 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,761
 |
Clarification of 2004 Airbox Regs...
I was checking out the drawings of new Lola LMP2 car and noticed that the second head-rest/roll-hoop area was used as an airbox for the engine. Is this legal under the 2004 regulations? If so, why would Courage make an airbox on top of on of the headrests on the C65 when they could eliminate drag and increase rear wing efficiency by placing the airbox in the second head rest? Does anyone know what the ruling on this is?
|
|
|
|
|
28 Apr 2004, 13:26 (Ref:954659)
|
#2 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
Re: Clarification of 2004 Airbox Regs...
Quote:
I'm not an engineer... But it looks (at a glance anyway) that they are also using the Gearbox as part of the Roll-Hoop or Roll-Over safety apparatus on the C65, as well as on the Pesca and the Lister... But I haven't examined the images closely, so please correct me if I'm wrong... |
|||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
28 Apr 2004, 18:43 (Ref:954907)
|
#3 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,761
|
i'm surprised more people haven't replied to this because i feel that if the lmp cars are allowed to place the air intakes in the headrest of the second head-rest then this will almost negate the factor of extra drag created by the second head-rest because most cars have an air intake there anyways (i.e. domes, mkIIIc, dallara, zytec, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 Apr 2004, 20:30 (Ref:955002)
|
#4 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
To be honest, that other headrest is exactly where I would put them, too...
|
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
28 Apr 2004, 21:41 (Ref:955111)
|
#5 | |
|
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 142
|
I think this ruling is dire the cars look ugly! OK sportscars are meant to be two seaters but going to these lengths mean the cars are aestetically poor and therefore GT racing will lose its appeal due to the cars "bad looks". i think it will take some time before a factory outfit enters and radically alter the apperance of the formula with a rule bending chassis!
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 Apr 2004, 21:52 (Ref:955122)
|
#6 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
I'm not wild about them, but I don't think they are horrid, either...
and they look worlds better than some of the Grand Am DPs.... |
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
28 Apr 2004, 22:49 (Ref:955214)
|
#7 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 981
|
Just out of interest where were the images of the lola you were looking at?
But I agree, it would seem like a logical solution, although I expect you would probably only gain a little drag benifit back, as the current airboxes are desgind with this in mind, but the headrest (IIRC) have to have a set shape, which is quite flat to the airflow. Also there maybe differences in the pressure or air feed problems from getting airflow in that region, as there is a large open space in front of the headrest, which will not have the same airflow characteristics as the rest of the car. However as usual, I turn to Mike Fuller (MulsanneMike) and Andy Thorby for possible reasons/interpritations Whatcha think Mike and Andy? Regards Ed Last edited by Try Hard; 28 Apr 2004 at 22:50. |
||
|
|
__________________
watch this space :)
|
|
29 Apr 2004, 00:28 (Ref:955269)
|
#8 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,761
|
The images of the lola are on mulsanne mike's site, in the news section under the archives in the november section
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 Apr 2004, 01:01 (Ref:956295)
|
#9 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,761
|
where's mulsanne mike when you need him? haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 May 2004, 18:51 (Ref:981698)
|
#10 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 981
|
Spotted this today.
John McNeil from Team Nasamax (the only LMP1 car btw) said over on dailysportscar.com that it isn't possible to place the airbox in the headrest. To quote: "Each area is strictly regulated, so that for example we can’t put the airbox entry within the secondary roll structure on the passenger side." Hope it clears it up a little. Regards Ed Last edited by Try Hard; 24 May 2004 at 18:53. |
||
|
|
__________________
watch this space :)
|
|
24 May 2004, 19:12 (Ref:981731)
|
#11 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,761
|
yeah just read that, thanks for the heads up! by the way, all you dsc subscribers should read this article, very good journalism
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 May 2004, 08:50 (Ref:982301)
|
#12 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 160
|
I read bthat article on DSC and then tried to find in the regs anything to say "you can't have the intakes in the passenger side" and frankly, couldn't find it.
I would be grateful if anyone has read it to tell me where it is. |
||
|
|
|
|
25 May 2004, 10:23 (Ref:982382)
|
#13 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 182
|
I think the airflow to the opening in the headrest is a bit turbulent. But you can use it for engine bay cooling, oilcooler inlet, brake duct, etc... So why not use it for this kind of things. Always better as a duct than as non working frontal area.
So it's probably not alowed as an inlet. |
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2004 Restrictor Regs | JAG | Sportscar & GT Racing | 2 | 23 Oct 2003 16:49 |
| Poll 1600ff Regs 2004 | Aysedasi | National & International Single Seaters | 2 | 13 Oct 2003 13:30 |
| 2004 Prototype Regs | BSchneiderFan | Sportscar & GT Racing | 40 | 23 Feb 2003 08:32 |
| What The British Rallycross Regs Will Do In 2004! | Robin Plummer | Rallying & Rallycross | 5 | 18 Feb 2003 02:22 |
| 2004 Protototype regs. | JAG | Sportscar & GT Racing | 1 | 10 Oct 2002 18:03 |
Linear Mode
