Page 81 of 99
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 17 Jan 2014, 23:27
by Huntresa
f1316 wrote:astracrazy wrote:neilbah wrote:http://i.imgur.com/YikjFpL.jpg
tried to mark out how scarbs drawing may be possible but im not sure about the legality overall, green section is trying to highlight how the vanity panel sits over the legal single closed section with mandated nose tip height-the actual plough part may have to be thicker to provide the min area. tried to abuse the step in chassis too
i don't see the gain with that design, even if legal. Only the area below the plough is going under the car surely? then the section of the plough to vanity panel is just pushing air to the side?
I'm sure it breaks 3.7.8 and 3.7.9 (diagonal line)
What was the original reason to use a snow plough rather than leave the area under the nose unobstructed? (I'm asking genuinely, not being sarcastic).
To create front downforce.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 02:46
by theWPTformula
Regarding Scarbs' drawing and snow ploughs etc., he later confirmed that the design was illegal after clarification. When cut in half, the entire nose section must be made up of one complete cross section. The plough design creates two, hence why it does not meet the regulations.
There's a small grey area around the 'plough above the nose' concept, as both are attached together, therefore we presume it's one single section. However I believe that the single section rule regards thickness as well, but it's all up for interpretation. I've heard this layout causes a lot of drag, too, so perhaps not the best overall solution but well thought of nonetheless.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 04:37
by wuzak
theWPTformula wrote:Regarding Scarbs' drawing and snow ploughs etc., he later confirmed that the design was illegal after clarification. When cut in half, the entire nose section must be made up of one complete cross section. The plough design creates two, hence why it does not meet the regulations.
There's a small grey area around the 'plough above the nose' concept, as both are attached together, therefore we presume it's one single section. However I believe that the single section rule regards thickness as well, but it's all up for interpretation. I've heard this layout causes a lot of drag, too, so perhaps not the best overall solution but well thought of nonetheless.
The single section refers to a vertical cross-section which can be from the centreline to 250mm from the centreline.
So, while the nose may conform at the middles, where the plough is connected to the upper nose, when you move out sideways it probably falls foul of the rule.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 15:34
by hollus
Good point on the snowplough causing drag.
When McLaren removed theirs, the rationale (in their own words) was that it was adding some (I believe it was front?) downforce. Chanes in the rear followed, and once they didn't need that extra front downforce, there was no reason to take its drag penalty. With fuel limits, drag might be a bigger consideration next year, and with rear downforce heavily compromised, as many have said the front of the car will be optimized for more than just (front) downforce generation.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 17:59
by techF1LES
According to Italian media, Lotus developed a kind of 'walrus' nose cone for their E22. Rumours are reportedly backed by some departing employees.
Excerpts from the article below:
- front wing pylons are structural parts
- impact structure has not passed the crash test at the first attempt
- it was necessary to strengthen the pylons at the cost of having more weight in front of the front axle
OmniCorse.it: Lotus: avrà il muso a tricheco tipo Williams FW26?
EDIT:
@turbof1 came up with this
clever idea which makes 'walrus' nose cone legal by asymmetric impact structure forming part of the actual nose cone and one pylon supplemented with the vanity panel to form the second pylon and the rest of the nose cone.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 20:08
by idfx
Very Nice. I'll do more drawings of this noise walrus.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 20:41
by roadie
I do hope we see a Walrus design if possible. Very unique at the time!
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 20:46
by cossie
will any team be using monkey seats this year????
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 20:46
by siskue2005
yup much better than the dick nose
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 22:01
by timbo
cossie wrote:will any team be using monkey seats this year????
Most definitely, I imagine some may try a multi element ones.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 18 Jan 2014, 22:57
by Holm86
timbo wrote:cossie wrote:will any team be using monkey seats this year????
Most definitely, I imagine some may try a multi element ones.
And central RW sections like this I think. Just without the slit.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 19 Jan 2014, 00:29
by joetoml1n
Where are the technical regs re vanity panels?
Part of 3.7.9 says "Any bodywork situated above the impact absorbing structure defined by Article 15.4.3 or above the survival cell, and forward of the line B-B, must be of prescribed laminate, details of this laminate may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations" However, I can't find these details anywhere in the Appendix.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 19 Jan 2014, 01:32
by avatar
siskue2005 wrote:yup much better than the dick nose
Yes, the "Drew Peacock" nose ain't pretty.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 19 Jan 2014, 01:33
by PlatinumZealot
turbof1 wrote:Second iteration:
http://imageshack.us/a/img189/6523/v84n.jpg
Basicilly, replaced some vanity panel surface with nose surface. Also, in response to Tim Wright, I changed how I integrated the pylons: now the real ones are 'glued" to the vanity/nose pylons and both pylons are attached to the actual nose. Nose pylons are also slightly thicker. The vanity panel stays there to keep symmetry on both sides of the bigger pylons.
So both more top nose surface and nose pylon surface, plus actual pylons in symmetry attached to the underside of the nose. Gives a better chance to pass the crash and deflection tests, but is a slightly more compromise in terms of volume underneath the car.
If somebody now comes with an explicit rule that assymetric noses are forbidden, I am going to cry.
EDIT: "Sabretooth" nose with pylons behind nose/panel.
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/703/ru3g.jpg
3.7.2
Any horizontal section taken through bodywork located forward of a point lying 450mm
forward of the front wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre
line, and between 125mm and 135mm above the reference plane, may only contain two closed symmetrical sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm 2. The thickness of each section may not exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line.
This means you can only have one outer laminated skin for the pylons.
Re: 2014 Design
Posted: 19 Jan 2014, 01:37
by variante
And central RW sections like this I think. Just without the slit.
Cannot be done. Rule 3.10.8:
Any horizontal section between 600mm and 750mm above the reference plane, taken through bodywork located rearward of a point lying 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and less than 75mm from the car centre line, may contain no more than two closed symmetrical sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm2. The thickness of each section may not exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line. Once fully defined, the section at 745mm above the reference plane may be extruded upwards to join the sections defined in Article 3.10.1. A fillet radius no greater than 10mm may be used where these sections join
Basically you would be able to place there only two small lowered sections of the main wing. They may be helpful...but not so much if compared to Renault's solution showed in the image you posted.
This is the only solution:
