Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
FrukostScones
162
Joined: 25 May 2010, 17:41
Location: European Union

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

I have no problem with these noses, maybe ugly but exciting. 8) modern F1 cars also look more like insects than normal road cars with a "face"... I never found any F1 car waas looking as good as a for example a Countach or an F40 or 458 or Aventador... so I think all this "beautiful F1 cars" which is about looking menacingly and martial is BULLCRAP!
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
61
Joined: 24 Feb 2013, 14:07

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

FrukostScones wrote:I have no problem with these noses, maybe ugly but exciting. 8) modern F1 cars also look more like insects than normal road cars with a "face"... I never found any F1 car waas looking as good as a for example a Countach or an F40 or 458 or Aventador... so I think all this "beautiful F1 cars" which is about looking menacingly and martial is BULLCRAP!
exactly.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"

gold333
gold333
7
Joined: 16 May 2011, 02:59

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

Maybe it's a generational thing. Perhaps people who have been watching F1 for only a few years are used to ugly and therefore don't care. Others who witnessed the nature like organic shapes of the 60's or early 90's do.

There's no other reason I can think of that someone would want F1 cars (which they look at for 2 hours every two weeks) to be ugly instead of not ugly.
F1 car width now 2.0m (same as 1993-1997). Lets go crazy and bring the 2.2m cars back (<1992).

gridwalker
gridwalker
7
Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 12:22
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

I've been watching since the mid 80s, but I don't really mind these cars : we will get used to them, and some people will complain when they change again ... a lot of the complaints seem to be reactions to change, rather than appraisals of the intrinsic beauty of each generation of car.

Hell, even wings were considered ugly when they were first introduced to F1. Now people complain about their proportions.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine ..."

gridwalker
gridwalker
7
Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 12:22
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

Ok, I have just seen the Caterham and I take back my previous statement. If the Tyrell inspired "X-Wings" were banned for being too ugly, the Caterham should be reduced to components and scattered across the globe so that it may never blacken our screens again.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse *facepalm*
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine ..."

Pingguest
Pingguest
3
Joined: 28 Dec 2008, 16:31

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

Why do we need the low nose cones any way?

Frafer
Frafer
4
Joined: 26 Jan 2014, 02:16
Location: Padua (IT)

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

Pingguest wrote:Why do we need the low nose cones any way?
because of this Image
"I will miss Gilles for two reasons. First, he was the fastest driver in the history of motor racing. Second, he was the most genuine man I have ever known. But he has not gone. The memory of what he has done, what he achieved, will always be there." J. Scheckter

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

Pingguest wrote:Why do we need the low nose cones any way?
Because the high noses had two unwanted effects.

1. In a T-bone crash, the nose was at the driver's head height.
2. In a rear end collision with the rear wheel, the nose was flicked up in the air, a-la Mark Webber.

Adrian has a good point though that it's possible to submarine under the crash structure now, which does not sound like a good thing at all.

flattyre
flattyre
2
Joined: 21 Jan 2009, 03:16

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

beelsebob wrote:Adrian has a good point though that it's possible to submarine under the crash structure now, which does not sound like a good thing at all.

Rather like Piquet in Australia 1989. He crashed into the back of a slower car, because he couldn't see it in the rain. Piquet's car went underneath the other one, and he got hit in the helmet. If you ask me, I'd rather be flying through the air than have that. But, I can't recall it ever happening apart from that one crash...

flattyre
flattyre
2
Joined: 21 Jan 2009, 03:16

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

Did anybody else notice how Massa's car rode up the nose of Kobayashi's when they collided at the start? I got the impression that the only thing stopping it from going all the way was the step in the nose of the Caterham, or maybe the front left wheel that was still attached. Kind of worrying, actually...

EDIT: Apparently it has been noticed http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... rand-prix/

User avatar
SectorOne
166
Joined: 26 May 2013, 09:51

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

Frafer wrote:
Pingguest wrote:Why do we need the low nose cones any way?
because of this http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1010/5182 ... 46a5_o.jpg
Nope, it´s because of this, that´s why the nose is below the horizontal center line of the car.

Image

The T-bone accident thing was a change for 2012, which sparked the platypus noses.
And 2011 where they set a maximum height for the cockpit/nose assembly.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

User avatar
Powershift
-2
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 04:32

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

SectorOne wrote:
Frafer wrote:
Pingguest wrote:Why do we need the low nose cones any way?
because of this http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1010/5182 ... 46a5_o.jpg
Nope, it´s because of this, that´s why the nose is below the horizontal center line of the car.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... p6IcaIoPLC

The T-bone accident thing was a change for 2012, which sparked the platypus noses.
So maybe the nose tip edge should be the same or just lower than the axle height, and the rear crash structure the same? Should the side crash structures also be included in this height consideration?
Winning is the most important. Everything is consequence of that. Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose.-Ayrton Senna

User avatar
SectorOne
166
Joined: 26 May 2013, 09:51

Re: Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

Post

Powershift wrote:So maybe the nose tip edge should be the same or just lower than the axle height, and the rear crash structure the same? Should the side crash structures also be included in this height consideration?
I don´t understand the question.

Basically the reason for a nose lower then the centerline of the wheel is to stop the rear wheel launching cars up in the air.
You can still have this problem but you can´t really put anything that prevents a front wheel and rear wheel from touching.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"