Nose idea

[___]

The way that rule is defined is looking from the top it has to be one section.

No, it says:

longitudinal vertical cross section taken parallel to the car centre line

A cross section you can view from above is not parallel to the car centre line. You've drawn a cross section parallel to the car centre line here:

Neither the Mercedes nor the Lotus fail this test. All such cross sections through their noses continue into the legbox.

1. As you add flap angle the drag created by said wing goes up more than proportional to the level increased downforce.

This applies to your wing as well.

2. Wings are designed with a maximum design wing angle, whereby, passed this point the stall will be quite abrupt and over a large surface of the wing.

This is true, and as I said, the cars rarely run with their front flaps at the maximum design angle. If they want more downforce than they can get at the maximum angle, they can redesign the wing to produce more downforce (by not stalling until a higher angle or by producing more downforce for a given angle) at the cost of more drag.

3. The main point. By increasing the wing angle you are reducing both the mass flow and the quality of said mass flow of air going to the back of the car sacrificing some rear downforce. People always talk about the mass flow going under the nose to the back of the car however nobody talks about the air flowing next to the air underneath the nose. I.e. The air flowing inside of the front wing but not under the nose.

The air going under the front flaps mostly doesn't go under the floor, it goes over the top and round the sides. Of course if you can make your device allow the same mass flow under the nose then that downforce can still be useful.

There's hope - Lotus have been experimenting with what is essentially this design but made legal. Note the array of pillars arranged so that any side view section slices through one of them and connects up to the chassis:

[trinidefender]

thepowerofnone the way you describe an impact would be as if each tusk is only supported by its own material. By have a structural bridge wing there you essentially create a scenario where the two tusks become on piece and move together which can more ham double it's strength. In an impact there ya be enough force to shear one of the tusks off but as the two tusks are joined firer forward it transfers force into the mounting of the other tusk.

Fundamentally my design is different to the design of the mercedes. Their design is purely to allow airflow underneath, my design sacrifices some airflow underneath the nose to allow more airflow below the suspension going straight to the bardgeboards.

Somebody made a post saying that I am doing the same thing by increasing my angle of attack. Actually incorrect. What I am doing is adding another downforce producing surface. I.e. Increasing total wing area on the front of the car. This allows the normal front wing to do less work and be run with smaller/lower angle of attack flaps.

Here is an image of a vertical cross section. If you take that and apply it to any part of the nose you will always get one continuous piece. Hence it is legal.



I appreciate all the comments but I'm not sure exactly if you guys exactly get how I see this design working. I'll have to doing a computer design with dimensions when I get some time and them maybe it will become more clear.

[turbof1]

thepowerofnone the way you describe an impact would be as if each tusk is only supported by its own material. By have a structural bridge wing there you essentially create a scenario where the two tusks become on piece and move together which can more ham double it's strength. In an impact there ya be enough force to shear one of the tusks off but as the two tusks are joined firer forward it transfers force into the mounting of the other tusk.

Fundamentally my design is different to the design of the mercedes. Their design is purely to allow airflow underneath, my design sacrifices some airflow underneath the nose to allow more airflow below the suspension going straight to the bardgeboards.

Somebody made a post saying that I am doing the same thing by increasing my angle of attack. Actually incorrect. What I am doing is adding another downforce producing surface. I.e. Increasing total wing area on the front of the car. This allows the normal front wing to do less work and be run with smaller/lower angle of attack flaps.

Here is an image of a vertical cross section. If you take that and apply it to any part of the nose you will always get one continuous piece. Hence it is legal.

http://www.scn.org/sbtp/iso-cs2.gif

I appreciate all the comments but I'm not sure exactly if you guys exactly get how I see this design working. I'll have to doing a computer design with dimensions when I get some time and them maybe it will become more clear.

Structurally your nose would come fairly close to what mercedes has. Different philosophy of course, but structurally it has similarities. However, Mercedes already had to pass the crash test for their current nose ATLEAST 3 times (rumored to be 5). The biggest similarity, and this were the problem lies, are that the tusks/tips are placed at the trailing edge of the neutral section, which leaves a very minimal amount of crash structure to work with.

Your nose has:
a) less volume in the 'floor' section of the nose tip then the higher and better places 'roof' section of the mercedes.
b) misses a huge chunk behind it

I don't see this getting through the crash tests either. You'll need to extend the tusks in order to succeed in it.

Fundamentally my design is different to the design of the mercedes. Their design is purely to allow airflow underneath, my design sacrifices some airflow underneath the nose to allow more airflow below the suspension going straight to the bardgeboards.

You are essentially trading clean air for dirty air influenced by the very turbulent wake of the wheels, and the effect is minimized anyhow by the Y250 vortices.