2014 Design

[WhiteBlue]

Nothing really new then? Didn't we discuss all those points before?

[n_anirudh]

Would the low nose/narrow wing improve driver visibility (even by a little) ?

Now the FW is narrower, would we see less damage in collision? Have they restricted the front wing endplate design?

[Pierce89]

It clearly says in the FiA communication that the whole drive train with the recovery system got more weight than they thought before. So teams would have very little influence on it. You would have to make expensive changes to the engine and recovery design with the cost of the power train already high. There would also be the option to do a less rigid engine, but that has other negative implications. I think they gave away a big chance to improve the power to weight ratio when they shot down the I4 engine. That would have been more powerful for less weight and the engines would be running by now. We are probably talking 40 bhp plus and 30 kg less. It would make the power to weight ratio go up from 1.174 to 1.288. The current cars have 1.184.

It gets even more interesting if you compare P/W ratio for cars with a full race fuel load:
2013 V8, 642 kg +150 kg, 760 bhp -> 0.960 P/W
2013 I4T, 660 kg + 100 kg, 850 bhp -> 1.118 P/W
2014 V6T, 690 kg + 100 kg, 810 bhp -> 1.025 P/W

You see the I4 would have beaten them all. The 2014 turbo is at least better in race trim with fuel than the current V8.

Any calculations behind your figures? They seem fairly arbitrary to me. I don't believe that the I4 would have as large an advantage as you claim in either category.

Weight is my personal estimate. Power was discussed some years ago on this board and Autosport forum. What are your personal estimates? I reckon we will still see a reasonable P/W ratio whatever you come up with, particularly with fuel included. One thing they need to change due to the higher weight is the tyres though.

My personal estimate would be roughly half the advantage in each category . So I4 15kg lighter and 20hp more, but keep in mind that the I4 wouldn't be fully stressed and, the gearbox would there for require some support.

[motorloon1993]

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2013/07/08/20 ... irst-look/

[WhiteBlue]

My personal estimate would be roughly half the advantage in each category . So I4 15kg lighter and 20hp more.

I'm not going to argue that point as it is not going to make a fundamental change.

Keep in mind that the I4 wouldn't be fully stressed and, the gearbox would there for require some support.

Which is backdated thinking. With modern CAD design and deformation simulation you would be able to design the outer shape of the block with webbing and ribbing that you get any geometry and any sectional modulus as required by the designers. And you would still have a lighter engine. Just think of all the plumbing, one cylinder bank less, two cylinders and pistons less, fewer crank bearings, fewer valves. It goes on and on. There are enough I4 designs out there that show how it is done. The F1 engineers would have to accommodate a bit of change which they don't like. The shape of the tub/engine interface would have to be re negotiated and re designed. They all would panic that a manufacturing team might get it a bit better than the they can do it. And in the end it would fail as it did because Ferrari cannot accept an I4 (due to backward thinking).
Bottom line is we have a worse P/W ratio than we should have.

[Huntresa]

Nothing really new then? Didn't we discuss all those points before?

I was more qouting their opinions more then the rules ;D

[Huntresa]

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2013/07/08/20 ... irst-look/

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/wp-content/up ... draft2.jpg

I thought FIA wanted to remove cascades on the FW ? Or has Scarbs just taken an FW and shrunken it and forgot bout cascades?

[Huntresa]

Would the low nose/narrow wing improve driver visibility (even by a little) ?

Now the FW is narrower, would we see less damage in collision? Have they restricted the front wing endplate design?

The lower bulkhead will give more visibility, from 625 to 525.

[Holm86]

Why do they keep doing those ridiculous nose regulations. Why not just lower the chassis. Instead of doing it over several years.

[Huntresa]

Why do they keep doing those ridiculous nose regulations. Why not just lower the chassis. Instead of doing it over several years.

They did lower the chassi now, or do you mean something else ?

[turbof1]

Why do they keep doing those ridiculous nose regulations. Why not just lower the chassis. Instead of doing it over several years.

Like Hintresa (yeah pun intended) subtly hinted, the lower bulkhead has to positioned lower. That is where the chassis meets the nose cone. Nothing rediculous about that, nor about the previous one: back in 2012 the chassis was kept so that teams didn't had to develop a new chassis and thus could save costs.

[WhiteBlue]

And I would add that the objective is to reduce the danger from high noses in several accident types. T-bone and cars going over each other being the most important.

[Blackout]

I dont understand what changes will be applied to the rear wing's height and the main plane's dimensions

[Holm86]

Why do they keep doing those ridiculous nose regulations. Why not just lower the chassis. Instead of doing it over several years.

They did lower the chassi now, or do you mean something else ?

"As the second phase of the FIA's move to lower the nose tip to prevent disastrous t-bone or nose-to-wheel crashes, the whole nose box will now be bound by the restricted height rules of 2014.

This year, the nose tip can be 550mm high and the chassis 625mm high, with a vanity panel allowed to hide the unsightly bump created by the step."

This is what I mean. Second phase? How many phases are they gonna have? This is probably not the last one. My problem is that you still need a vanity panel. Why not just lower the chassis enough so that it's impossible with high noses. Without this stupid step.

"The regulations also prevent the nose structure arching up too high and although vanity panels will be permitted, it is possible some very odd shapes will be created to maintain the highest possible chassis/nose combination." <-- this I feel is ridiculous.

[Huntresa]

Why do they keep doing those ridiculous nose regulations. Why not just lower the chassis. Instead of doing it over several years.

They did lower the chassi now, or do you mean something else ?

"As the second phase of the FIA's move to lower the nose tip to prevent disastrous t-bone or nose-to-wheel crashes, the whole nose box will now be bound by the restricted height rules of 2014.

This year, the nose tip can be 550mm high and the chassis 625mm high, with a vanity panel allowed to hide the unsightly bump created by the step."

This is what I mean. Second phase? How many phases are they gonna have? This is probably not the last one. My problem is that you still need a vanity panel. Why not just lower the chassis enough so that it's impossible with high noses. Without this stupid step.

"The regulations also prevent the nose structure arching up too high and although vanity panels will be permitted, it is possible some very odd shapes will be created to maintain the highest possible chassis/nose combination." <-- this I feel is ridiculous.

But it wont arc up per say, it will prob be like Toro Rosso 2009/10, where as the nose isnt a curved surface downwards but more of a sharp drop off.

And as mentioned above, they didnt lower the chassi last year cause it would have cost the teams to much to make new chassis.

You gotta remember we now have a low bulkhead and a that the nosetip must be very low, almost on the FW, the teams dont get much to work with between the bulkhead and nosetip, there is no actual way to make the nose higher cause the tip still has to be where it says in the regulations, only thing they can do is either do Brawn 2009 proper curved surface or Toro Rosso step drop off, but both will end up at the same point for the nosetip and both will hinder air under the nose the same and both will stop t-boning the same.