F1technical.net

Yep, I think more upright position would improve racing as drivers could be less overcautious about their front wing in trying to overtake. Do you remember one of Top Gear episodes with tribute to Senna? Hamilton was let to drive a MP4/4 and one of first things he said was how great the visibility was.

I don't think it makes sense. Move the driver up, just to move the protection up with him. The foam etc will be in the same relative position to the driver to have to same safety, therefore his vision will be hindered just the same.
Secondly, no amount of heisting will allow the driver to see the front corners of the wheels where the wing tips are located.
It's better if the wings are returned to the 2008 width or fenders placed on the rear wheels.

This view is from the roll hoop, and we still can't see the wing tip. We have to keep that in mind when we watch from the cockpit. It will take more than a foot to even give the driver this kind of view, and it's still not enough.

We can't expect the driver to be that high do we?

The cars are simply shaped in a way that the driver simply has to learn where the wings are.

more: helmet cam, camera is probably 6 inches higher than driver's line of sight.
Still a poor view.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4SAXSJ5HV8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpwG1Notqjo[/youtube]
now wing tips or nose tip.

If you take a way the high nose - as they will do - the drivers will have better visibility from a raised position. Twenty years ago the drivers head were completely above the top edge of the tyres. Today the helmets are probably so low that they cannot see much over the tyres.

20 years ago a driver could get his head bashed in by a flying wheel.

I don't think they are taking away the high nose. The high nose is much much safer in the event of a crash.
The low noses are less likely to prevent objects from riding up towards the driver, or preventing the car from wedging down into a tyre barrier.

The fetal position is safer and more specially efficient. It's also less fatiguing for the driver since his steering grip is more relaxed as well as his back having more support in a more horizontal position.

ringo wrote:I don't think they are taking away the high nose.

I'm pretty sure they will. We even know how low: 120 mm.

ringo wrote:I don't think it makes sense. Move the driver up, just to move the protection up with him. The foam etc will be in the same relative position to the driver to have to same safety, therefore his vision will be hindered just the same.

There is no foam in front of the driver. The foam to the sides of the head do not factor into forward visibility. The drivers head and side protection would stay the same, just drop the leading edge of the cockpit down and give a greater descending angle to the nose.

From the guy who claims to have CFD in his head, you have a terrible imagination.

ringo wrote:20 years ago a driver could get his head bashed in by a flying wheel.

That has no relevance to the discussion. There are wheel tethers these days. The number of wheel tethers per wheel is being double for next year.

WhiteBlue wrote:

ringo wrote:I don't think they are taking away the high nose.

I'm pretty sure they will. We even know how low: 120 mm.

Correct, and the reason why, as you've stated before, is probably going to be for allowance of front-wheel KERS equipment.

Did they double up the wheel tethers this year or was that in the cards for 2011?

Giblet wrote:Did they double up the wheel tethers this year or was that in the cards for 2011?

Its a new rule for 2011.

FIA 2011 regs:

10.3.6

In order to help prevent a wheel becoming separated in the event of all suspension members connecting it
to the car failing provision must be made to accommodate flexible tethers, each with a cross sectional area
greater than 110mm². The sole purpose of the tethers is to prevent a wheel becoming separated from the
car, they should perform no other function.
The tethers and their attachments must also be designed in order to help prevent a wheel making contact
with the driver's head during an accident.
Each wheel must be fitted with two tethers each of which exceed the requirements of 3.1.1 of Test
Procedure 03/07.
Each tether must have its own separate attachments at both ends which :
- are able to withstand a tensile force of 70kN in any direction within a cone of 45° (included angle)
measured from the load line of the relevant suspension member ;
- on the survival cell or gearbox are separated by at least 100mm measured between the centres of
the two attachment points ;
- on each wheel/upright assembly are located on opposite sides of the vertical and horizontal wheel
centre lines and are separated by at least 100mm measured between the centres of the two
attachment points ;
- are able to accommodate tether end fittings with a minimum inside diameter of 15mm.
Furthermore, no suspension member may contain more than one tether.
Each tether must exceed 450mm in length and must utilise end fittings which result in a tether bend radius
greater than 7.5mm.

Perhaps relevant to this discussion is the Fioravanti LF1 concept car from 2009. It illustrates some of the features we have been talking about in this thread and others:

-Low drag forms
-Elimination of wings, reliance upon ground effect
-Small windshield (could carry HUD)
-Low nose (better for AWKERS as WB has pointed out, and improved driver visibility)
-18" wheels
-Covered wheel leading/trailing edges, to reduce chances of tire-to-tire contact, the main cause of flips







One of the stated design goals was to create a small wake of only 10m in length behind the car:













Note airfoil section suspension arms:

Formula None wrote:

ringo wrote:I don't think it makes sense. Move the driver up, just to move the protection up with him. The foam etc will be in the same relative position to the driver to have to same safety, therefore his vision will be hindered just the same.

There is no foam in front of the driver. The foam to the sides of the head do not factor into forward visibility. The drivers head and side protection would stay the same, just drop the leading edge of the cockpit down and give a greater descending angle to the nose.

From the guy who claims to have CFD in his head, you have a terrible imagination.

No, what you fail to realize is that the most limited views are to the side.
Remember singapore crash with Hamilton and Webber, Australia with Button and Alonso? Shumacher in Abudhabi, and many more? There are more side or rear blind spots than there are directly to the front.
As it relates to the front view, it's impossible to see beyond the wheels, so it makes no sense discussing a head on view. A driver simply wont see the wing.

ringo wrote:20 years ago a driver could get his head bashed in by a flying wheel.

That has no relevance to the discussion. There are wheel tethers these days. The number of wheel tethers per wheel is being double for next year.

So a wheel tether is going to stop a mis-fitted wheel from rolling off?
Or another car riding up the side of a car?


but seriously guys, tell me how your going to make this work?


Where is the nose going to be lowered from? Is it safe to do so?
Will the driver's legs be flat on the ground, pedals on the ground,
look where the wing tips are, you can never see them , no matter how low the nose is.
And low nose doesn't support a KERS solution, the nose has to be high with a deep belly. Basically high and low, since the drive's legs has to be placed over the KERS diff and motor.

ringo wrote:No, what you fail to realize is that the most limited views are to the side.
Remember singapore crash with Hamilton and Webber, Australia with Button and Alonso? Shumacher in Abudhabi, and many more? There are more side or rear blind spots than there are directly to the front.
As it relates to the front view, it's impossible to see beyond the wheels, so it makes no sense discussing a head on view. A driver simply wont see the wing.

And you've failed to realize we're discussing forward visibility. Side visibility will always be an issue. The HANS restraint and side cushions restrict rotation of the head, as they are designed to do. So it follows that we are talking about forward visibility. Rear visibility, as you know, is only afforded by the mirrors. No one is talking about mirrors. Would you like to discuss side and rearward visiblity, Ringo?

ringo wrote:So a wheel tether is going to stop a mis-fitted wheel from rolling off?
Or another car riding up the side of a car?

Of course not, the tether is designed to prevent detachment of the upright and suspension components. You're the one who brought up Senna's death as a reason to not abandon high-noses. It seemed you forgot why wheel tethers were introduced. Would you like to talk about wheel nut failsafes, Ringo?

Formula None wrote:
And you've failed to realize we're discussing forward visibility. Side visibility will always be an issue. The HANS restraint and side cushions restrict rotation of the head, as they are designed to do. So it follows that we are talking about forward visibility. Rear visibility, as you know, is only afforded by the mirrors. No one is talking about mirrors. Would you like to discuss side and rearward visiblity, Ringo?

We were never talking about forward visibility. We used Vettel as the poster boy for the change; Vettel moved to the side and ran into lewis in silverstone, forward visibilty was not the blame for that one. In fact most accidents like those are from side visibility or rearward visibility. It was visibility overall, this is why i went on to mention adding cameras. Why add cameras for forward vission? I don't know if i can speak for the others, but the discussion was for side vission; the wing tips, tucked ahead of the wheels. A driver has to lean his head to the side to even think of looking at the wing tips or into a turn apex.

ringo wrote:So a wheel tether is going to stop a mis-fitted wheel from rolling off?
Or another car riding up the side of a car?

Of course not, the tether is designed to prevent detachment of the upright and suspension components. You're the one who brought up Senna's death as a reason to not abandon high-noses. It seemed you forgot why wheel tethers were introduced. Would you like to talk about wheel nut failsafes, Ringo?

Why are you putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned Senna or death.
I just said a wheel can bash a driver's head in. Either a wheel a front wing, the tyre wall; if a car flips on it, or digs into it, or maybe a pit mechanic . Senna falls into the description, but i wasn't using him to sensationalize the argument.

Anyway get a load of this:

My low nose photoshop for all the nostalgic fans. It makes no sense for a Front wheel KERS point of view.


It comes down to the pics as usual

Orange lines are view lines. The higher one is with upright seating position.

The red line is what is required to see the wing tip for the current formula (The high nose wing is not in this picture, but the redline indicates where it is).

Light blue is all a driver will be able to see if he looks over the front wheels.
This refers to the higher position.

For the low nose, i had the reduce the endplate height just to make it look nice, don't pay that any mind. What should be noted however is the slope of the nose.
This makes front suspension mounting an issue. Everything, springs, dampers, brake fluid, would have to be mounted closer the ground. This is very dangerous in the event of a collision.
The drivers legs will also have to be on the ground as well. He is at risk in the event of riding over bumps and rumble strips or whatever.
Secondly there is no room for KERS with a low nose and the driver's legs to the ground.
Having the system with this setup will also bring the driver to close to heavy KERS parts in the event of an electrical, coolant, mechanical fault.

Whatelse.... the air box will have to be higher than the 950mm line as well, since the driver's head is in the way.

If anyone would like to add something feel free.

I think I understand, Ringo, you like to use the royal "we." So yes, you are correct, "we" have been talking about all of those things.

ringo, on page 8 wrote: The higher the driver the increased risk of injury to the head, neck and upper body.
Only if the driver is in a roll cage would i seat him higher. We all saw what happened to Senna.

ringo, on page 9 wrote: Why are you putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned Senna or death.

ringo wrote: My low nose photoshop for all the nostalgic fans. It makes no sense for a Front wheel KERS point of view.



It comes down to the pics as usual

No, at least not in this instance. You could have left the driving position the same, and lowered the nose only. But I understand that you need to keep pushing you misinterpretation of the idea being discussed, so as not to appear wrong. Giblet addressed this earlier:

Giblet wrote:Thought I would point out the obvious as apparently some think the driver would be sitting up like a prairie dog.

I'm not talking about being upright, but not quite as laid down. IF there was a mandated height, it would improve visibility and racing.

A less misleading interpretation of a low nose design applied to a modern F1 car: