Teams agree to cover up ugly noses for 2013

[k.ko100v]

http://thef1times.com/news/display/06736

[Shrieker]

I don't think that's a good solution simply because,

1) There were some concerns raised here in this forum about the way the current noses are attached to the bulkhead. The upper and lower attachement points have come closer which could cause the nose to come off easily in the event of a collision, and the car may go ahead and hit a wall or a barrier at significant speeds without the benefit of a nosecone.

2) This 'cover' they speak of could dislodge and cause serious damage anywhere it strikes in the event of an impact.


I think safety should be held in equal regard as aesthetics in this matter. Why can't they just make the top of the nose droop down in an arc instead of covering the step with some kind of funky panel ?

[stefan_]

Or they can make cars like the MP4-27 launch-spec (or even lower chassis-nose combination) and deal with the fact that they can't feeld the undeside of the car with that much air.

[ESPImperium]

Simply put in my opinion this still means they must try harder.

There is only one solution, that is a flat bottomed chassis, not early 90s flat bottomed, but BGP001 flat bottomed with the nose tip being in line with the front wheel centre line, or no more than 50mm above that centre line.

The rules need to be changed totally in this area, so that the chassis top is uniform from the secondary roll structure to 250mm in front of the front wheel centre line and where the step presently is there but be a continuous chord length from the A-A line in the present regs to the nose top of 500mm to 650mm where the nose tip has to be.

Im not sure entirely, but the cars that woule be legal to my rules would be the BGP001, MP4/24, F60, MP4/27 (Launch), F110, F111, F112, MVR-02 and the MGP W01 as well. Thats the types of nose and solution that i think should be in F1, not the present trend of high noses to feed the diffuser.

On the back of the Grosjean incident at Spa, i also think the rear crash structure needs to be looked into as well, i think its just too low at present. The present regs allow the cars to ride up over one another.

One thing i am against is a stupid canopy or protector for the driver.

[bhallg2k]

A welcome change, if you ask me.

[zyphro]

Inevitable.

[n_anirudh]

Why not bring the 2014 lower nose regulations forward. Maybe a bit too late at this stage as Wind Tunnel models and CFD programs would be in full swing. If they can still alter the 2013 regs wrt aero, why not push forward the 2014 rules?

This would further prevent Webber-Hekki Valencia type accidents

[bar555]

I would propose totally new rules about overall nose dimensions by 2014 . The simpler scenario would be to lower the chassis height drastically right from the cockpit in order to achieve
- a smoother nose transition ( aesthetically improvement )
- a far more comfortable driver seat
- to some extend a better visibility ( improved safety )
- lower noses ( safety again ) as desired
- negative impact on aerodynamic efficiency ( cut speed , a trend that FIA always seek )
- more flexibility on front suspension structure ( good for mechanics )

So simple to my opinion to keep both FIA and mechanics happy .

[ESPImperium]

I would propose totally new rules about overall nose dimensions by 2014 . The simpler scenario would be to lower the chassis height drastically right from the cockpit in order to achieve
- a smoother nose transition ( aesthetically improvement )
- a far more comfortable driver seat
- to some extend a better visibility ( improved safety )
- lower noses ( safety again ) as desired
- negative impact on aerodynamic efficiency ( cut speed , a trend that FIA always seek )
- more flexibility on front suspension structure ( good for mechanics )

So simple to my opinion to keep both FIA and mechanics happy .

Pretty much what im proposing in a much simpeler and easier to read form!

[King Six]

The 2014 regulations are rewritten for the nose. Expect them to droop down in a much more proper way. For some reason they are doing this current mess of regulations so that some teams can re-use their chassis or at the very least they don't have to significantly change their designs from year to year.

The 2013 rules are a decent stop gap, I guess. Does anyone know if teams would rather just go with the step nose and not include the modesty panel? For weight reasons and such? Or will any aero benefit come out by having that instead of the step nose?

I hope teams make use of it. The step noses are unsightly...

[Jersey Tom]

A modesty panel? This sport is getting a bit comical.

[FoxHound]

A modesty panel? This sport is getting a bit comical.

Is it universal panel? Some appendages are bigger than others after all...

[stefan_]

Obviously it is not a one-size panel. They have to work it in and make it fit with what they have without any aerodynamical gains.

[FoxHound]

Obviously it is not a one-size panel. They have to work it in and make it fit with what they have without any aerodynamical gains.

Of course I was jesting

[Diesel]

I really don't understand this...

Any panel that extends from the tip of the nose cone to the bulk head would surely exceed the boundaries set by the regulations on nose cone height. If the FIA are going to allow this then why not just raise the nose cone height again?