MIKEY_! wrote:The sudden slope on the upper surface will create a little more DF than a gentle slope (i think) and it will be further forward so it acts like a lever. The low pressure under the nose sucks air under the leading edge and probably gives a small DF gain (mostly offset by more air flowing over the FW centre section as well). Importantly that low pressure will devliver more air to the splitter than if that bulkhead was lower and the slope more gradual. Hope that helps.
raymondu999 wrote:As for the "upside down checkmark" shape of the 2009 Red Bull/2010 Mercedes n12ck mentioned, I believe what they were trying to do was introduce a low pressure zone right below that lowered nose, which would help suck more air through to then feed the diffuser. I think. Don't quote me on this
Tomba wrote:There are of course many other factors that come into play before having the eventual aerodynamic shape.
First of all, teams recently aimed to increase the area under the frontal bulkhead, now for aerodynamic reasons. However, the height and dimensions of the front bulkhead also limit front suspension geometries, and hence there may be a compomise, either upward or downward.
Anoter factor that could come into play if weight distribution (now a little less important due to it being nearly fixed) and CoG. A low nosetip may be interesting for putting ballast in that. I am however unsure if this is still allowed because of safety considerations.
That said, isolating the aerodynamic aspect of the nose, a sharp dive of the tip makes little sense. A more gradual slope with the same difference in height could as well generate the same amount of downforce.
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], Twitter [Bot] and 5 guests