F1technical.net

Manoah2u wrote:I did a caterham photoshop with the picture above:

http://i.imgur.com/JFS3nXA.jpg

with camera pods:

http://i.imgur.com/kqCLFwT.jpg

*based upon mcdesign mclaren

Does that nose comply with the regulations?

3.7.8 Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the reference plane.

since caterham has had the FIA homologate their nose, i say yes it's legal. after all, the picture is based upon the picture of the actual nose crash test of caterham

It's not legal. It needs to have the edges flat just like the one that's on that autosport cover.
In fact from their crash test, you can see that the flanks are quite flat.

basically if you were looking from underneath it, you should be able to see one continuous surface; meaning the crash structure doesn't shadow any part of the underside of the vanity panel.

Very nice !! Incredible Drawings.

ringo wrote:It's not legal. It needs to have the edges flat just like the one that's on that autosport cover.
In fact from their crash test, you can see that the flanks are quite flat.
http://i.imgur.com/JFS3nXA.jpg
basically if you were looking from underneath it, you should be able to see one continuous surface; meaning the crash structure doesn't shadow any part of the underside of the vanity panel.

ahhh i understand, so it's smoothened out / rounded off too much then?

Hello everyone! This is my first post on f1 technical.

Has it already been mentioned that at time index 0:29 into the video of the Caterham crash test there is a photogarph of Caterham's nose from the side (EDIT: On the screen, upper right pic)? Maybe this helps guessing the shape of the nose. I made a screenshot and worked on it so that the nose is clearer to see, but it appears to be more difficult than I thought to post it here... So maybe someone else could do that for me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTObVI2C8M

6 of 12 wrote:Hello everyone! This is my first post on f1 technical.

Has it already been mentioned that at time index 0:29 into the video of the Caterham crash test there is a photogarph of Caterham's nose from the side (EDIT: On the screen, upper right pic)? Maybe this helps guessing the shape of the nose. I made a screenshot and worked on it so that the nose is clearer to see, but it appears to be more difficult than I thought to post it here... So maybe someone else could do that for me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTObVI2C8M

Just upload on igmur.com it and paste it downhere i dont want steal your credit.

like this

[img]http://www.glkjfhkufk.jpg[img]

ringo wrote:

eyalynf1 wrote:

ringo wrote:Yes and whats funny is that i already noticed this earlier in the thread, but looks like i forgot after the new year.
Any how everything happens for a reason.. as trying to bypass the regs gave me a cool idea.

Suppose my vanity panel is actually a sharp edge delta wing ?

Do you intend for the delta wings to shed vortices? If so, I would think the vanity panel would shed them rather too high to be useful to the floor or lower part of the sidepods. To get them down, you would need the deltas to have a relatively positive angle of attack, creating lift.

I have considered using chines along the sides of the lowest part of the crash structure nose as an alternative to using the tips of the front wing.

It actually creates downforce. It's angled the opposite way that you would see on an aircraft. The intention is to create downforce, but also to turn the vortices inward to promote more air flow under car.
http://s1010.photobucket.com/user/ducka ... 4.png.html


http://s1010.photobucket.com/user/ducka ... 8.png.html

http://s1010.photobucket.com/user/ducka ... 7.png.html

even though there is some downfroce, the speed of air coming from the vortex will be lowered because of the energy dissipation. This may not be a good thing, but it's not in the vicinity of any part that will need high speed air, and it's a small effect.

Thought this picture would be relevant, 2000 arrows.

Well spotted! For a better orientation, the camera isn't allowed to be more than 450mm forward of the FWCL.

CFD Analysis showing the downforce difference between the 2013 car versus the 2014 car.



via AutoSport

"The beam wing has gone and that has been done to reduce drag"... euhm no. The beam wing has been removed to both reduce dowforce and to avoid teams using it to blow it with the relocated exhaust. The beam wing wasn't giving a lot of drag.

The 20mm shallower box is going to hurt everybody more than RedBull. Remember how RedBull were running very shallow wings at places that required medium downforce??!

Notice that in the 2nd picture (without beam wing ) the main rw is not performing (stall starting from the pillars).
Also notice how mauch bluer are the streamlines in the footplate zzone, meaning slower speed and less powerful footplate vortices.

This does not seem to be a very detailed cfd model (see for example the sharp angle of the blue streamline when hitting the floor) but stiil gives an idea of the trends, with the floor streamliness no longer "pulled" up by the beam wing upwash.

I am curious to see what the teams will find to recover rear downforce

Michael Fuller has a good article on the swan necks and how they became common in LMP's it not only shows the improvement swan necks make, but also how the pillars affect airflow.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/rearwingLMPCFD2009.html

Which makes me think, would it be benificial to give away some wing area in the center to make room for swan neck wing supports?

Some others have alredy said that they expect many swan neck pillars next year and I agree with them. The lower surface of the wing is more critical (in past years monkey seats were used to improve its stability)