Moderators: Ciro Pabón, Principessa, Tomba
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
| manchild | |
![]() Master ![]() Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am Posts: 4542 |
Two versions shown on pic - same idea. Would it work?
pic shows cross section of nose cone
![]() Over 123.000.000 animals killed daily, over 5.000.000 animals killed hourly, over 85.000 animals killed every minute. While you read this over 40.000 animals was killed. www.goveg.com Last edited by manchild on Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total. |
| Tom | |
![]() Master ![]() Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:24 pm Posts: 2548 Location: Oxford Brookes |
It might work, you can't really tell without a wind tunnel or CFD, but you would hit trouble in the crash tests.
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure. |
| tomislavp4 | |
Talent![]() Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:07 pm Posts: 493 Location: Sweden & Republic of Macedonia |
Yeah, I´ve tought of this also.
[IMG:150:120]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/280/untitled1tj4.th.png[/img] (click for big) the lower picture shows current designs, the air from the front wing hits the nosecone on the lower side creating LIFT in the new design the air goes over the nosecone (part of it I guess) so the lift is not experienced + the wing-shaped front section of the nosecone adds downforce But this is only my opinion, we still need CFD to see if it really works |
| Carlos | |
![]() Professional ![]() Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:43 pm Posts: 1247 Location: Canada |
Manchild - It reminds me of a leading edge flap. Here are a few links...but I will have to leave comment to our "aero guys."
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/design-wing.html http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/highlift/ ... intro.html http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=239334 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_edge_slot |
| allan | |
![]() Talent ![]() Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:14 pm Posts: 441 Location: Waterloo, Canada |
i agree with tom on this idea...
I thought some supercars used this design too, such as the F50 and the Paganni, am i right? |
| Ciro Pabón | |
![]() Moderator Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 11:31 pm Posts: 2827 Location: Bogotá, Colombia |
It seems a solid idea. Reminds me of the slots on the front of aircraft wings. I think of three effects that can diminish its benefits.
1. I don't know if the lift that tomislavp4 mentions is related somehow with the air you wish to direct to the undertray. In this case, maybe part of the downforce generated in the Manchild Nosecone could cost downforce at the undertray, because it would rob it of air. 2. The air that exits the "slot", in front of the "windshield" also interacts with the upper body. I don't know if the current body design has the "wrong" shape (it's convex) or what effect has this air on the body. 3. From intuition, it seems to increase drag. The car has two noses now and the "second" one is blunter than the current one. I can think of three good things: 1. It's cool. 2. I think that the frontal crash tests would have no problem (after all, you can design the shape of the beam box that connects the "new nose" to the rest of the car to give it the rigidity desired, at the cost of section of the air passage. Maybe the critical forces would be lateral. Are there lateral crash tests? 3. Again, the design offers a "crushable volume", with two separate sections that could be designed to "collapse" in front of the driver. That maybe can be used to diminish deaceleration exerted on the "main body" on a crash. It's like a front wing on steroids in this sense. ... and a happy Friday afternoon, btw. |
| sasquatch | |
Junior![]() Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 2:31 am Posts: 23 Location: Melbourne, Australia |
why can i never see the pictures?? Are they removed quickly from the server?
|
| manchild | |
![]() Master ![]() Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am Posts: 4542 |
Thanks for clarifications of pros and cons Ciro (saves me time). Diffuser is fed by air picked up below sidepods. Besides, front wings are high and the air that would go trough nose cone would be the air traveling on top of the front wing. Also, few years back I had another idea - something like this one only inverted with aperture in nose cone that would direct air below and I got answers that it would kill feeding of airbox... BTW, perhaps benefit would also be better feeding of airbox and with slightly cooler air?
They use such outlets but for hot air from radiators I think. sasquatch, can you see them now? I have no problem seeing them. Anyone else?
![]() Over 123.000.000 animals killed daily, over 5.000.000 animals killed hourly, over 85.000 animals killed every minute. While you read this over 40.000 animals was killed. www.goveg.com |
| RH1300S | |
Professional![]() Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:29 pm Posts: 1143 |
Nice idea - thinking out of the box again?
My thoughts based on observation and guesswork My understanding of how this works.....this type of arrangement is used often in sports cars to get air out of the heat exchangers (hate to word radiator Probably not so much downforce inducing - more a reduction in lift. I suppose it would only work if the air under the nose is at higher pressure than the air over it. The air under the nose at that point is (presmuably) acclerated through the gap between the wing and the nose - so there may not be such a pressure difference. Of course, doing this robs the under floor of the car of some (possibly) very useful air.................. Cool thinking 'though. |
| tomislavp4 | |
Talent![]() Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:07 pm Posts: 493 Location: Sweden & Republic of Macedonia |
I think I can make quick model of a car with this nose in SolidWorks but only if someone can run a CFD simulation later
|
| MMUK | |
![]() Junior ![]() Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:35 am Posts: 24 |
I reckon going with the inverted aperture would be better, feeding more air under the car. Also, in the current setup the air could have a difficult time negotiating the current aperture angle, you'd have to have a favourable pressure gradient for it to want to go up the aperture.
Ill mesh and run any CFD models you have if required. Flow vis pics as well as numerical data will follow. It would have to include a simple front wing though, to gain a better understanding of the required onset angle onto the aperture. |
| modbaraban | |
![]() Master ![]() Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:44 pm Posts: 2764 Location: Kyiv, Ukraine |
Wouldn't that create quite a lift?
It would be perfect to have a model of an existing car to run it with and without the aperture to see the difference. |
| MMUK | |
![]() Junior ![]() Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:35 am Posts: 24 |
perhaps locally on the specific region of the nosecone, but the downforce gain under the car due to increase mass flow could outweigh it if designed properly.
The huge surface area of the underfloor means its the place where downforce gains are easily made. |
| MMUK | |
![]() Junior ![]() Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:35 am Posts: 24 |
yer that would be ideal but running a full car requires serious computing power to achieve reasonable results! |
| tomislavp4 | |
Talent![]() Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:07 pm Posts: 493 Location: Sweden & Republic of Macedonia |
I can model simple stuff but not current f1 cars
Anyway this is just to see how the air will flow over the cone so we don´t really need mp4-22 |
| Similar topics | Forum | Replies | Views | Last post | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mclarens front nose | General chat | 3 |
1934 |
by Tomba on Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:14 am |
|
| an idea on front wing....... | Aerodynamics, chassis and tyres | 0 |
1044 |
by mirdavanfe on Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:26 pm |
|
| Winning by a nose | Engine, transmission and controls | 7 |
1598 |
by Reca on Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:48 pm |
|
| And you think the FW26's nose is ugly!!!! 1, 2, 3 | General chat | 31 |
4251 |
by bizadfar on Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:08 pm |
|
| nose cone 1, 2, 3 | Aerodynamics, chassis and tyres | 42 |
7035 |
by bernard on Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:45 pm |
|
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest