F1technical.net

I'm not exactly sure whether this has been discussed or not, apologies if it has been;

This is a screenshot from Piola's animation:


From that, can we automatically assume the drivers will have a better line of sight ? If yes, do you guys think it will make for better racing ?

Shrieker wrote: From that, can we automatically assume the drivers will have a better line of sight ? If yes, do you guys think it will make for better racing ?

No, you can't.
The nose can be still 625mm high up to immediately behind the AA line.
Which is what many Teams are doing (or rather basically all except McLaren).
So nothing really changed wrt line of sight. Therefore any potential impact on the race situation is moot.
That said I don't think much would Change if everyone had the low noses.
The narrower front wings this year could have more Impact.

Blanchimont wrote:

idfx wrote:The cut and the inside
I will make more pictures.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Qf0n ... 5a-Tr6.jpg

If you move this longitudinal cut away from the car center line, you'll see two sections. That would make this nose design illegal!

The transversal cut 50mm behind the nose tip is an additional rule.

No problems. The regulation is very confusing.Thanks for the tips.
I created a new project this is ok ?
Inspired by the "lotus" and "Ferrari"
thanks

Top

Font

Left



Mirror

Brillant. Do you have a transparent render of that nose ? or a cut like this https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Qf0n ... 5a-Tr6.jpg ? And can you give us the dimensions of the horns? (the cross section's dimensions for example)

What if you add a vanity panel to it in order to make the nose and the 'U' sape higher?
For example:

Blackout wrote:What if you add a vanity panel to it in order to make the nose and the 'U' sape higher?
For example:
http://www7.pic-upload.de/06.02.14/3o5zeyh3f1vu.jpg

I'd also use the vanity panel to make the shorter nose back longer to have full symmetry. I think that is allowed.

older people (your mother ?) may ask when/how did the term 'modesty panel' become the term 'vanity panel' ?

(modesty and vanity being contradictory concepts)

And yet both are strangely appliable.

turbof1 wrote:

Blackout wrote:What if you add a vanity panel to it in order to make the nose and the 'U' sape higher?
For example:
http://www7.pic-upload.de/06.02.14/3o5zeyh3f1vu.jpg

I'd also use the vanity panel to make the shorter nose back longer to have full symmetry. I think that is allowed.

I agree, but why Lotus didnt cover the shorter nose?

They might still do. One picture from today did gave the impression the tusks are now equally long. It's waiting for better pictures to come up though for confirmation.

turbof1 wrote:

Blackout wrote:What if you add a vanity panel to it in order to make the nose and the 'U' sape higher?
For example:
http://www7.pic-upload.de/06.02.14/3o5zeyh3f1vu.jpg

I'd also use the vanity panel to make the shorter nose back longer to have full symmetry. I think that is allowed.

Weight and sensitivity to damage.

Blackout wrote:What if you add a vanity panel to it in order to make the nose and the 'U' sape higher?
For example:
http://www7.pic-upload.de/06.02.14/3o5zeyh3f1vu.jpg

liked the idea, I'm developing. thanks for the tip.

I created another alternative, I do not know if it's illegal.
I did all symmetric and I finished lowering only one nozzle. Everything below the maximum height of a nozzle theoretically would be considered part of the body of the object and not a nozzle.

Blackout wrote:Brillant. Do you have a transparent render of that nose ? or a cut like this https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Qf0n ... 5a-Tr6.jpg ? And can you give us the dimensions of the horns? (the cross section's dimensions for example)

No problem
I can make a cut, to help in their studies
I do not know where is the transverse cut of that object.
Thank