Mercedes GP MGP W01

[horse]

I don't think is is doing what the lower surface of the Merc. nose is doing.

The McLaren nose cone does actually have a very similar "kink" on the underside if you look here:

[ringo]

Yes but it's a plate, the upper sarface is what's having the more positive effect.
I was thinking about it, but i have to see a CFD before i can definitely stick to a theory.
I could be wrong, but looking at the redbull?...

[timbo]

Is there any point in judging nosecone alone? Are we having nosecone championship?

[toshinden]

its more like that the nosecone can be an important factor for the championship

[marcush.]

very rarely you would take the competitors ideas build a car with those and be in front...
In my view an advantage only can stem from original ideas corectly implemented .To hope Newey did anything but a well thought out thing with what he did last year is dreaming.

So ,as a matter of this Merc and Macs did what they felt was necessary: they try to carve new niches of aero development.
I´m still a bit puzzled about the Ferrari though ...

[biggles22]

Confused_Andy, how can you say that Mercedes GP haven't done any good cars in a long time? Only the one that won the world championship last year, it would have been even more convincingly if it weren't for the drivers making a hash of it.

The nose design is not about chaneling air down the nose, in-fact its nothing to do with the top surface at all. I'm sure someone on here must have worked-out the philosophy behind the design?

Looking at it, i would deduce it was an effort to increase front grip, by having that surface slanted against the flow. I'd say it has nothing to do with channeling air. It's basically a turning vane, where changing the momentum of the air results in a reaction force on the nose, which happens to be in the vicinity of the the front wing and wheels.
They may be looking for additional front end grip with those narrower tyres.



The only problem i have with the design is the underside, they should not have followed the contour of the upper surface. I would make it more like Newey's design and keep the underside as straight as possible. Mercs underside only acts to expand the air and increase pressure under the car, which is not desirable.

Newey style:

when the air expands under the nose the pressure DECREASES. Which is a desireable effect. The Ideal Gas equation covers this effect. The idea behinds Newey's V nose isn't anything to do with decreasing or increasing pressure underneath or above the nose, it arises from the regulations stipulating that the tub must be atleast a set height and width but Newey realised that they don't have to be relative to each other, i.e. Not joined at the corners. By ofsetting the sides he could create a V at the bottom which has two advantages.

1) A single keel suspension geometry layout can be used, both lower wishbones can now mount at the bottom of the V.

2) The tub now acts as a large turning vane because it has 2 large angled faces, forcing more air between the tub and tyres, therefore feeding both the radiators and diffuser more efficiently.

[Raptor22]

The Under noce "kink" or raised area really works on the philosophy of what the designer whats the front win flow to look like.

In the Mercs case, the raised section under the nose does slow down the flow immediately between the wheels but is has the nett efect of pulling air over the wing faster, increasing its efficiency

[wesley123]

@biggles; another positive effect of it is that it reduces frontal area around the nose.
Negative effects are that it in some sort increases skin friction, it reduces driver sight, the height is in theory a bit lower.

Another positive idea is that in theory you could put the tub way lower, the v reaching the reference plane, this might be an idea for 2011 where underbody becomes less important, by doing that you can place the weight incredibly lower.

[biggles22]

@biggles; another positive effect of it is that it reduces frontal area around the nose.
Negative effects are that it in some sort increases skin friction, it reduces driver sight, the height is in theory a bit lower.

Another positive idea is that in theory you could put the tub way lower, the v reaching the reference plane, this might be an idea for 2011 where underbody becomes less important, by doing that you can place the weight incredibly lower.

True, but laminar flow doesn't tend to have massive amounts of drag so increased surface area isn't a big issue and would be well outweighed by the advantages. Lowering the tub would definetely help with vision, but would limit the amount of air the diffuser receives, playing around under the nose is a sure-fire way to mess up the flow to the diffuser, plus having it low-to-high has the advantage Raptor22 pointed out that is sucks air over the front wing by creating a lower pressure area under the nose/tub due to the expansion of the air.

[F1_eng]

biggles22, this is completely true, that's the basis behind the concept, and the comment by someone about increasing the speed of air along the front wing. One this you must bear in mind is, relying too much on the wings for downforce in not desirable, especially the front wing. If you can achieve the same number but transfer the downforce to the body, it's a much better result.

Most people and a large portion of F1 teams only consider straight line aero, the car is rarely in this condition so yaw and cross-wind should be more biased in terms of results and what the design goals are, yet is rearly crosses the minds of most critics.

[autogyro]

Very important point FI eng.
Few seem to consider the direction the airflow over the car comes from.

[ringo]

Confused_Andy, how can you say that Mercedes GP haven't done any good cars in a long time? Only the one that won the world championship last year, it would have been even more convincingly if it weren't for the drivers making a hash of it.

The nose design is not about chaneling air down the nose, in-fact its nothing to do with the top surface at all. I'm sure someone on here must have worked-out the philosophy behind the design?

Looking at it, i would deduce it was an effort to increase front grip, by having that surface slanted against the flow. I'd say it has nothing to do with channeling air. It's basically a turning vane, where changing the momentum of the air results in a reaction force on the nose, which happens to be in the vicinity of the the front wing and wheels.
They may be looking for additional front end grip with those narrower tyres.



The only problem i have with the design is the underside, they should not have followed the contour of the upper surface. I would make it more like Newey's design and keep the underside as straight as possible. Mercs underside only acts to expand the air and increase pressure under the car, which is not desirable.

Newey style:

when the air expands under the nose the pressure DECREASES. Which is a desireable effect. The Ideal Gas equation covers this effect. The idea behinds Newey's V nose isn't anything to do with decreasing or increasing pressure underneath or above the nose, it arises from the regulations stipulating that the tub must be atleast a set height and width but Newey realised that they don't have to be relative to each other, i.e. Not joined at the corners. By ofsetting the sides he could create a V at the bottom which has two advantages.

1) A single keel suspension geometry layout can be used, both lower wishbones can now mount at the bottom of the V.

2) The tub now acts as a large turning vane because it has 2 large angled faces, forcing more air between the tub and tyres, therefore feeding both the radiators and diffuser more efficiently.

Nope , not always true, whether you get a pressure increase or decrease at the throat is based on the end condition at that expansion. That is why a diffuser behind a car works the way it does. The end condition is atmospheric or lower. If the end condition was much higher than atmospheric, then it would be better to have straight floor than a diffuser. In the case of this nose, there is not "vacuum" to fill like behind a car or a wheel.
Equations can't be applied blindly without knowing boundary conditions. Concerning the V nose, that is ok with me. What i was pointing at is the longitudinal section of Redbull's nose cone.
It goes straight to the splitter, no upward curving. This shape, has been copied by some teams, including ferrari, and they know what it's doing.

Sorry if I am focussing on something seemingly simple as a nose cone folks. The W01 doesn't even have 20 pages, might as well we get into the nitty gritty of the design like how we did with the Mclaren.
I am very curious about this nose, and the thread could use some more activity till testing starts again.

[toshinden]

i think all parts of the car are worth to discuss, and the most unique about this car is the nose
not my point to neglect other part such suspension and other ... but the thing that other cars don't have in common is the nose

[marcush.]

and airbox rollover structure....both Merc and Mac are really innovative given the set of rules .

[ringo]

A picture is worth 1000 words

not 100% accurate but pretty close. (splitter was rushed )


cut plot

Now we can discuss what's going on with this nose. It is similar to what I predicted. Even though the pressure changes are not drastic; every little thing adds up.
The expansion is from the darker blue under the point of inflection between the wing supports. The good thing though, is that it is still in the atmospheric region of pressure after the expansion. I am guessing it could be harmless.
The nose is too narrow to create any real suction under it since the flow field to the sides are at atmospheric.
I will then say the arch in the nose is just to meet the regulated longitudinal area.
The nose was made very high and sloped to obtain down-force. Because of this tall nose, the cross section would be rather big if a straight line was used from the chin to the splitter like the Redbull. The arch is a way to take out some area under the nose while still being able to use that big blob at the tip of the car.

This simulation was done on a very basic mesh setting. It's gonna take some hours for better details with my little old PC.

This is just my opinion by the way, happy to hear any corrections.