2014 Design

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
astracrazy
astracrazy
56
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: 2014 Design

Post

i read the gearboxes will need to be much longer because of the turbo above them

the cars are going to look quiet different i think, bit more bulkier

what about wheel base? slightly shorter? smaller fuel tank and smaller engine...

User avatar
WhiteBlue
124
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:58 pm
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: 2014 Design

Post

astracrazy wrote:i read the gearboxes will need to be much longer because of the turbo above them

the cars are going to look quiet different i think, bit more bulkier

what about wheel base? slightly shorter? smaller fuel tank and smaller engine...
I think the gearboxes are already longitudinal as you can see in the picture below.

Image

So how are they going to make them longer? Probably by adding an eighth gear which is being done if memory serves me right. So perhaps the gear box will compensate a bit for the shorter engine and the smaller fuel tank. Fuel tank by the way will be compensated by the bigger ERS system. So all we can definitely say is that the radiators will become bigger and that there will be a hump above the gearbox making the whole engine section look much bulkier.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
matt21
102
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: 2014 Design

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:Yep, low noses will surely come with nose centre 185 mm maximum above the reference plane. Combine that with a shorter engine, no beam wing, a big hump of the MGUH and turbo above the gearbox and bulkier radiators for the inter coolers plus a central exhaust pipe and you have a totally different aero config. Nothing will carry over.
Reminds me of that.

Image

TryHard
TryHard
9
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:46 am

Re: 2014 Design

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:Yep, low noses will surely come with nose centre 185 mm maximum above the reference plane. Combine that with a shorter engine, no beam wing, a big hump of the MGUH and turbo above the gearbox and bulkier radiators for the inter coolers plus a central exhaust pipe and you have a totally different aero config. Nothing will carry over.
Blanchimont wrote:The 2014 nose sketch isn't correct as article 15.4.3 will also limit the nose height.
15.4.3
An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell. This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it. It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm² at apoint 50mm behind its forward-most point.

Furthermore :
a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 500mm above the reference plane.
b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference plane.
c) No part of this section may be more than 50mm below its centre of area.
Ahh, that makes a lot more sense, hadn't dug that far down into the regs... that 185mm CoA dimension should really lower the noses, as the way I'm reading it, that covers the tip of the nose (a section from the tip, to a point 50mm back from the tip). So a bit more like this sketch.
Image

Wonder if we'lll end up more with the fronts looking close to Prost 1997 cars, with a flat ish underneath and a hump to meet the lower chassis...
Image

RB7ate9
RB7ate9
10
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:03 am

Re: 2014 Design

Post

TryHard wrote: Image
Image

Marussia already ahead of the game?

astracrazy
astracrazy
56
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: 2014 Design

Post

no nose will be lower, like brawn style i think

Huntresa
Huntresa
54
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:33 am

Re: 2014 Design

Post

astracrazy wrote:no nose will be lower, like brawn style i think
Well looking at how extreme most designers have been these couple of years with air under the nose Mclaren being the only exception i think most will go as high as possible which would be a long outdrawn nose like the reference design 3 posts above, even if Brawn style is so much more good looking.

Blanchimont
Blanchimont
309
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: 2014 Design

Post

TryHard wrote:Ahh, that makes a lot more sense, hadn't dug that far down into the regs... that 185mm CoA dimension should really lower the noses, as the way I'm reading it, that covers the tip of the nose (a section from the tip, to a point 50mm back from the tip). So a bit more like this sketch.
http://www.thard.co.uk/images/chassisconfig2.jpg
Better sketch than the previous one, but the nose is still to high. Compare the nose height at the section 50 mm behind the tip (CoA 185mm +-50 mm) with the green box that shows the front wing area (75 to 275 mm in height). The nose should therefore not be higher than front wing end plates!
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)

muhammadtalha-13
muhammadtalha-13
-2
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:42 am

Re: 2014 Design

Post

Maybe. IF what we are thinking is true, then ThinkTanks at Marussia are.. i don't know what to say.. FREAKS.

TryHard
TryHard
9
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:46 am

Re: 2014 Design

Post

Blanchimont wrote:
TryHard wrote:Ahh, that makes a lot more sense, hadn't dug that far down into the regs... that 185mm CoA dimension should really lower the noses, as the way I'm reading it, that covers the tip of the nose (a section from the tip, to a point 50mm back from the tip). So a bit more like this sketch.
http://www.thard.co.uk/images/chassisconfig2.jpg
Better sketch than the previous one, but the nose is still to high. Compare the nose height at the section 50 mm behind the tip (CoA 185mm +-50 mm) with the green box that shows the front wing area (75 to 275 mm in height). The nose should therefore not be higher than front wing end plates!
Third times a charm... have no idea what happened with that second one... sure I typed in 185, must have referenced to the wrong point!

Image

Huntresa
Huntresa
54
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:33 am

Re: 2014 Design

Post

TryHard wrote:
Blanchimont wrote:
TryHard wrote:Ahh, that makes a lot more sense, hadn't dug that far down into the regs... that 185mm CoA dimension should really lower the noses, as the way I'm reading it, that covers the tip of the nose (a section from the tip, to a point 50mm back from the tip). So a bit more like this sketch.
http://www.thard.co.uk/images/chassisconfig2.jpg
Better sketch than the previous one, but the nose is still to high. Compare the nose height at the section 50 mm behind the tip (CoA 185mm +-50 mm) with the green box that shows the front wing area (75 to 275 mm in height). The nose should therefore not be higher than front wing end plates!
Third times a charm... have no idea what happened with that second one... sure I typed in 185, must have referenced to the wrong point!

http://www.thard.co.uk/images/chassisconfig3.jpg
Beautiful nose :D

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2014 Design

Post

They might make the nose like the mp4-23: a very thin nose tip. That should allow airflow the flow past the nose to underneath the chassis.
#AeroFrodo

Huntresa
Huntresa
54
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:33 am

Re: 2014 Design

Post

turbof1 wrote:They might make the nose like the mp4-23: a very thin nose tip. That should allow airflow the flow past the nose to underneath the chassis.
I dont think you can get away with the minimum neutral part of the Front wing in the middle if you go with such a thin nose.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2014 Design

Post

I don't see why that would give a problem. As long as you don't alter the neutral part of the main plane, you can do whatever you want with nosetip and pylon placement (within the regulated dimensions of course).
#AeroFrodo

astracrazy
astracrazy
56
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: 2014 Design

Post

TryHard wrote: Third times a charm... have no idea what happened with that second one... sure I typed in 185, must have referenced to the wrong point!
can the survival cell be at max height unlike your picture where its angled down? sort of like the rb5 with a lower nose? wouldnt it be better pressure wise?