F1technical.net

Oh, when I wandered into the realm of the wildly imaginative, I conjured an image of the ridges on either side of the nose acting as flying buttresses supporting a deck that would allow the nose to meet dimensional requirements while allowing the top to be essentially hollow for air to pass through freely.

In other words, I could use a live grand prix right about now.

bhallg2k wrote:Oh, when I wandered into the realm of the wildly imaginative, I conjured an image of the ridges on either side of the nose acting as flying buttresses supporting a deck that would allow the nose to meet dimensional requirements while allowing the top to be essentially hollow for air to pass through freely.

In other words, I could use a live grand prix right about now.

That is wild!

A live GP - You and me both, brother!

Could it be simply for stability by better controlling "inner flow"? That being airflow thru the car. It's known that part of the reason for Bernd Rosemeyers record attempt crash, was that they sealed the air inlets, including to the driver, in an attempt to smooth the "outer flow". This made it more unstable especially to those fatal cross winds.

strad wrote:Could it be simply for stability by better controlling "inner flow"? That being airflow thru the car.

And we had to wait 4-5 decades for someone to test the theory?

Brian

Huh?
Are you being facetious?
I'm not implying that it's anything "new" that they just discovered, didn't say that. To quote the article on Rosemeyer..

It's bread and butter for today aerodynamicists that the inner flow in a hi-speed vehicle is more critical, in terms of overall stability and performance, than the outside flow.

I'm simply suggesting that it may be nothing more than cooling and dealing with "inner flow" instead of some nefarious scheme to circumvent the rules.

I am serious. I view it as something that could have been done long ago. Nothing in the rules that would have prevented such an idea from being used. So then what has change to make it work in 2012?

Is my logic wrong?

Brian

No. And, as ever, you've made your point with the tact of a drunk and the grace of a ballerina with cerebral palsy.

I'm starting to think that the "vent/inlet/whatever" is the aperture of a hologram projector that causes cars in front to protect the wrong line while under attack.

hardingfv32 wrote:I am serious. I view it as something that could have been done long ago. Nothing in the rules that would have prevented such an idea from being used. So then what has change to make it work in 2012?

Is my logic wrong?

Brian

Brian, it's not your logic we have a problem with. It is just tiresome and annoying to have someone scanning all the posts for some flaw in reasoning or judgement, or if the posts are "technical" enough for their liking, etc, etc.

This is not the "adversarial system" of a court of law. No one has to prove anything. No one has to be right or correct.

It can also be tiresome and annoying to wade through piles of suppositions and technically baseless guesses as to the function of a device.

I don't really appreciate Brian's "questioning everything" approach, without actually adding a solution of his own, but at the same time at least he's trying to keep us from going on wild goose chases when he points out the "logical" flaw in someone's ideas.

volarchico wrote:...piles of suppositions and technically baseless guesses as to the function of a device.

People have to learn somehow, you know?

bhallg2k wrote:

volarchico wrote:...piles of suppositions and technically baseless guesses as to the function of a device.

People have to learn somehow, you know?

Exactly.

And just as much of this "logical flaw" pointing is wrong as is right. And it stifles anyone wanting to express anything beyond what is already a known fact.

So anyway, we've said our bit. On with the show!

I don't guess we will be any more likely to see behind the nose of the RB8 at Barcelona than we did at Jerez, unless they run one into something...

OK, so how about a poll? Imagine Adrian Newey were to (honestly) reveal all today...

What is everybody's best guess, right now, on the function of the RB8 nose hump intake?

I will start...

I believe the primary function is supplemental KERS cooling. I believe the amount actual intake air can be changed from track to track to allow more or less KERS cooling (but not actively controlled during the race), bleeding off the unused amount for driver cooling. At higher speeds, the pressure backs up and diverts any extra flow over the top of the chassis (not to be confused with an air dam, which would build forward of the ramp/hump).

+1 Newby

If it's not my hologram projector - hey, it wouldn't be illegal - I agree that it's for KERS/driver cooling, simply because the truth behind a mystery is rarely as sexy as you want it to be.