2009 design concepts

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
theDr
theDr
0
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

Thank you my friend :) :) hope you are well

Here is my attempt of a Ferrari 2009 car lol

Image

User avatar
Scotracer
3
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

:lol:
Powertrain Cooling Engineer

MattF1
MattF1
0
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:10 pm

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

Nice!

User avatar
modbaraban
0
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:44 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

How come the regs allow inflatable cars?

User avatar
guy_smiley
0
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:22 am

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

theDr wrote:
Here is my attempt of a Ferrari 2009 car lol
heheh very nice indeed!

having seen the picture of the williams with the new wings, i started wondering about the good 'ole williams walrus nose. for all of you, would it be legal in 2009? would it have any benefit? do you think the same thought crossed any teams' minds? i welcome all comments!

a thought of my own...someone asked if the ferrari 'hole-in-the-nose' would be legal and if it would have any benefit, and the reply was that the hole was there to relieve the pressure built up in that area and help air flow, and that since the 2009 front wing is flat in that middle section it wouldnt provide any benefit. i know that the aim of the walrus nose was the same as the ferrari hole-in-the-nose (only a different approach and a few years sooner). so with that in mind i wouldnt think it would do anything, but with so many changes for 2009 i decided that "you never know." so that's where all of you come in! enlighten me! :D
Smiles all 'round!

User avatar
modbaraban
0
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:44 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

Well, you sort of answered your own question in that post. The walrus nose was designed to make the most of the center section of the front wing. Now as the latter is barely existant, I can't see any benefits. But all the drawbacks of the design are still there, so yes, it's a good solution to go astray with development of the 2009 car :D

I'd rather expect very narrow nosecones, MP4-19 - esque ones. There might be less need for front ballast with the DF balance shifted towards the front (that's how I understand the new regs on wings and diffusers).

User avatar
guy_smiley
0
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:22 am

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

thanks mod (and btw i plan on visiting kiev when i go overseas next summer). one of the reasons i asked about this was that, along with (and maybe due to??) the new 2009 front wing, the front section of the nosecone on this williams seems to be wider and flatter--i recall a duck-billed platypus when i look at the nosecone of this interim williams. i could be mistaken as it might be an optical illusion, but it really looks different to me. i had assumed this new shape of the nosecone wasn't an optical illusion, and that's what got me thinking of the walrus nose. but as you and the other member say, if the middle section of the front wing is flat, it wouldnt make a difference.....
Smiles all 'round!

timbo
timbo
122
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:14 am

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

guy_smiley wrote:thanks mod (and btw i plan on visiting kiev when i go overseas next summer). one of the reasons i asked about this was that, along with (and maybe due to??) the new 2009 front wing, the front section of the nosecone on this williams seems to be wider and flatter--i recall a duck-billed platypus when i look at the nosecone of this interim williams. i could be mistaken as it might be an optical illusion, but it really looks different to me. i had assumed this new shape of the nosecone wasn't an optical illusion, and that's what got me thinking of the walrus nose. but as you and the other member say, if the middle section of the front wing is flat, it wouldnt make a difference.....
I also thought that Williams nosecone is wider than on 2008 car. You can get some DF from the nosecone, from pressure build up over the top. As the downforce available from wings and diffeser is limited maybe they woud chase every ounce they can get elsewhere.

FLC
FLC
0
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:01 pm

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

Anyone has an idea regarding the legality of placing the exhausts where we thought Ferrari might place them at the beginning of last year? Will it be legal to place a few vents there, or does the 2 holes for exhausts body rule thing applies to that area also?

This is what I'm talking about for those who don't remember:
Image

User avatar
Scotracer
3
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

As far I know, the two exits for the exhausts can be where-ever you wish them to be. We will just have to see which is the most efficient solution for the teams.
Powertrain Cooling Engineer

User avatar
Metar
0
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:35 am

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

With a tinfoil-covered wing support, perhaps having hot exhaust-air next to it is detrimental to it's performance?

Actually... Do the regs mandate the materials for the sidepods? I'd guess adding thin sheets of metal (if carbon-fiber doesn't conduct heat that well) on the sidepod might aid heat-extraction?

yzfr7
yzfr7
0
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:20 am

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

The two cars revealed so far use high nose concept. I thought the concept of high nose was introduced to make it possible to use the mid section of the front wing. Now that the mid section doesn't produce lift anymore, why using a high nose? Specially that 'thing' on the BMW?
pax

User avatar
Scotracer
3
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

yzfr7 wrote:The two cars revealed so far use high nose concept. I thought the concept of high nose was introduced to make it possible to use the mid section of the front wing. Now that the mid section doesn't produce lift anymore, why using a high nose? Specially that 'thing' on the BMW?
The nose has a minimum height now, so it doesn't interfere with the homologated section. We wont see any noses as low as the 2008 Mclaren for instance, and certainly not as low as mid early 90s.
Powertrain Cooling Engineer

D'Leh
D'Leh
0
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:42 am

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

Scotracer wrote:The nose has a minimum height now, so it doesn't interfere with the homologated section. We wont see any noses as low as the 2008 Mclaren for instance, and certainly not as low as mid early 90s.
I think you're wrong about the McLaren nosecone. Indeed there's a minimum height stipulated by the rules (the one defining the pillars holding the wing). But McLaren's nose wasn't really too low for that one. Look at the interim car of Williams (the one with 09 front wing). It has a low nose too and i think it still complies with the new rules.

http://images.gpupdate.net/newsnew/115614.jpg

User avatar
Scotracer
3
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Re: 2009 design concepts

Post

D'Leh wrote:
Scotracer wrote:The nose has a minimum height now, so it doesn't interfere with the homologated section. We wont see any noses as low as the 2008 Mclaren for instance, and certainly not as low as mid early 90s.
I think you're wrong about the McLaren nosecone. Indeed there's a minimum height stipulated by the rules (the one defining the pillars holding the wing). But McLaren's nose wasn't really too low for that one. Look at the interim car of Williams (the one with 09 front wing). It has a low nose too and i think it still complies with the new rules.

http://images.gpupdate.net/newsnew/115614.jpg
You are correct - I was thinking about the 2007 Mclaren which had a much lower nose than the MP4/23
Powertrain Cooling Engineer