F1technical.net

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 083&type=1

Holm86 wrote:

grams wrote:The team liveries should let everyone know who's responsible for the new noses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/115345194@N04/12114038564/http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7426/1211 ... e004f5.jpg

That one is awsome

Yeah that's the joke of this year. Can't stop laughing.

Anyway those at the FIA who wrote the rules in terms of nose section should fired up immediately and should be replaced with anybody who has some aerodynamic knowledge.

The lotus...front -> giant manta ray. two-noise

Oh God!! We are going from bad to worst!! These noses look awful! Maybe FIA should make a design for all the teams just for 2014 to avoid all this (really not the best idea! Everyone will have the same nose but...)! And then new nose rules for 2015!

It all makes sense

idfx wrote:https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 5872_n.png

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 083&type=1

I'm not sure if it complies with article 21.3 of the sporting regulations

looks good from this angle

Racer_D wrote:It all makes sense

http://i40.tinypic.com/359d1uf.jpg

Are they going to air after midnight in case on head on collision?

Blackout wrote:Because the beam wing is gone, maybe teams won't bother design higher and a bit bigger rear cooling outlets? would it be interesting to raise the top rear end of a flat outlet, like some of the ground effect f1 cars, in order to aid the airflow that passes under the RW? what pressure level would the hot air underneath that bodywork have? would that layout generate DF? or help extracting the hot air better ?

/similar to this
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.ph ... u=14795526

Like the Mclaren or Lotus, but more like this http://i57.servimg.com/u/f57/14/79/55/26/prjct_14.jpg

Notice how the prong with the lotus logo on it is longer than the other to get around the rules:

Hugely interesting.

Matt Somers commented in the E22 topic that this is similar to mine and his idea, but I disagree. The only similarity is that you want the middle unobstructed. The way this is achieved is completely different.

Also, I'd like to refer to a earlier piece of text of mine:

There's a certain regulatory box 50mm behind the nose tip. It needs to have a projected surface of 9000mm² at that point and inbetween 135mm and 250mm above the reference plane. This will leave you with a 78.26mm (thanks Somers for the calculations) wide nose at that point.
...
I'm just going to note here that splitting the structural nose in 2 normally isn't allowed, but IF Lotus did found a way to circumvent that and can legally explain a splitted nose, both sides can be 39,13mm.

Is that the case here? Are both noses adding to the 9000m²? Or does the longer nose has to be 9000m² and as consequence for symmetry the shorter one too?

Anyway I'm interested in what the effects will be like of the different lengths. It surely must have some effect when in wake?

I dont fully understand you... to me, it's very prossible that the longer finger we see, has a 115x78 section, 50mm behind its tip

I think that the distance between each nose tip is more than 50mm. So they want exluded one side from 90 000 mm2 area. So in that aspect they comply rules. So the shorter tip must be named as FW pylon with comply symetrical rule and AREA rules... Longer tip is crash structure...

But you could made nose tip even slimmer if you made L profile tip, but you must be very carefull to dont broke single crossection rule.. I will made drawings..

Blackout wrote:I dont fully understand you... to me, it's very prossible that the longer finger we see, has a 115x78 section, 50mm behind its tip http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_scratch.png

i agree.

Blackout wrote:I dont fully understand you... to me, it's very prossible that the longer finger we see, has a 115x78 section, 50mm behind its tip http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_scratch.png

It's difficult to measure it, but what I gathered from scarbs is that the longer nose is 9000m².

My original question was if they were allowed to split the required 9000m² over both noses. The reason behind this is that if you can, you can have thinner noses which doesn't block the airflow as much.

@Aleks: no you don't need to call it a FW pylon. It's just crash structure of the nose.

Just to be clear: the shorter nose isn't there to meet the technical rules. Remove it and the car is still perfectly legal. The short nose is there instead for both getting through the crash tests and to keep symmetrical airflow structures and symmetrical vortices. The tricky part is to get the short nose within the framebox of the rules. I can't believe this didn't end with a technical directive.

IMO, if you are able to push the rules this hard and still get through it, I'd stick a small vanity panel on the shorter nose to make it equal in length. If you can take such a long walk with the regulations, then you should be able to do that as well.

turbof1 wrote:

Blackout wrote:I dont fully understand you... to me, it's very prossible that the longer finger we see, has a 115x78 section, 50mm behind its tip http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_scratch.png

It's difficult to measure it, but what I gathered from scarbs is that the longer nose is 9000m².

@Aleks: no you don't need to call it a FW pylon. It's just crash structure of the nose.

Just to be clear: the shorter nose isn't there to meet the technical rules. Remove it and the car is still perfectly legal. The short nose is there instead for both getting through the crash tests and to keep symmetrical airflow structures and symmetrical vortices. The tricky part is to get the short nose within the framebox of the rules. I can't believe this didn't end with a technical directive.

IMO, if you are able to push the rules this hard and still get through it, I'd stick a small vanity panel on the shorter nose to make it equal in length. If you can take such a long walk with the regulations, then you should be able to do that as well.

Exactly

My original question was if they were allowed to split the required 9000m² over both noses. The reason behind this is that if you can, you can have thinner noses which doesn't block the airflow as much.

Ah ok.