F1technical.net

turbof1 wrote:

beelsebob wrote:Okay, so one thought is that you could use the trick that got used a few years back to make a 3 element rear wing:

http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/201 ... r_wing.jpg

At this point though, there's probably too much stuff under the nose, generating turbulence and poor quality air. It would probably defeat the point of getting the nose higher in the first place.

Interesting. Which year was that? I never picked up on that, so I'll need some more research on this.

This was 2004 if I remember correctly. They added the rule that rear wings must be 2 element, BAR found a way round it - by adding twisted pieces of carbon fibre between the upper and lower elements, they made it so that no matter where you cut through the pair of elements, there was a thin strip joining the two together, making it a single element in the eyes of the rules.

beelsebob wrote:

turbof1 wrote:

beelsebob wrote:Okay, so one thought is that you could use the trick that got used a few years back to make a 3 element rear wing:

http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/201 ... r_wing.jpg

At this point though, there's probably too much stuff under the nose, generating turbulence and poor quality air. It would probably defeat the point of getting the nose higher in the first place.

Interesting. Which year was that? I never picked up on that, so I'll need some more research on this.

This was 2004 if I remember correctly. They added the rule that rear wings must be 2 element, BAR found a way round it - by adding twisted pieces of carbon fibre between the upper and lower elements, they made it so that no matter where you cut through the pair of elements, there was a thin strip joining the two together, making it a single element in the eyes of the rules.

Any pictures of that? It sounds very interesting.

EDIT - Just seen the scarabs picture... very cool!

beelsebob wrote:Okay, so one thought is that you could use the trick that got used a few years back to make a 3 element rear wing:

http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/201 ... r_wing.jpg

At this point though, there's probably too much stuff under the nose, generating turbulence and poor quality air. It would probably defeat the point of getting the nose higher in the first place.

Wouldn't this be disqualified due to the cross section rule? (I'm refering to the rule that got the sauber disqualified from a podium 2 years ago in Australia)

AnthonyG wrote:

beelsebob wrote:Okay, so one thought is that you could use the trick that got used a few years back to make a 3 element rear wing:

http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/201 ... r_wing.jpg

At this point though, there's probably too much stuff under the nose, generating turbulence and poor quality air. It would probably defeat the point of getting the nose higher in the first place.

Wouldn't this be disqualified due to the cross section rule? (I'm refering to the rule that got the sauber disqualified from a podium 2 years ago in Australia)

The rule that got sauber disqualified in australia, was the minimum radius rule, and yes, this would indeed be disqualified by that. However, that rule applies to the rear wing, not to the nose, so a nose that did this would not be illegal.

The front nose has no limit on number elements either so there is not point cheating a rule that doesn't exist for the front wing.

In the future when the cost caps come in, we may very well see a limit imposed. No more than 3 elements maybe?

beelsebob wrote:Okay, so one thought is that you could use the trick that got used a few years back to make a 3 element rear wing:

http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/201 ... r_wing.jpg

At this point though, there's probably too much stuff under the nose, generating turbulence and poor quality air. It would probably defeat the point of getting the nose higher in the first place.

Very nice!!!
I found an interesting article mulsannescorner
This fantastic ideia was used by team Oak Racing's.
Image



article: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2011.html

can apply this ideia in a F1 ?

For the gurney of the rear wing maybe, but it isn't really useful since the gurney isn't mandatory.

Oak's solution was driven by the mandatory gurney and it's effect on drag. So to reduce the drag created, they added those bulges, where effectively, the gurney could be bent backwards, reducing drag.

beelsebob wrote:

ringo wrote:For all we know ferrari may come with a force India nose. It's the better design for maximising airflow.
Mercedes solution is sound, but there's no proof it's the best.

As you say, there's no proof it's the best... So why are you asserting that the Force India's is the best as a proven fact?

It is logically the better choice. There is no logic for the Mercedes nose, one that is lower, to be better.

Has anyone actually computed how much air volume goes underneath both crash structures? Remember that Force India still has that finger dingling right in front of it, blocking quite some flow.

And there are other variables too like weight and CoG.

ringo wrote:

beelsebob wrote:Mercedes solution is sound, but there's no proof it's the best.

As you say, there's no proof it's the best... So why are you asserting that the Force India's is the best as a proven fact?

It is logically the better choice. There is no logic for the Mercedes nose, one that is lower, to be better.[/quote]
What logic are you using to determine that? A quick measure says that the force india has 15% more area exposed to the air stream there, which is certainly an advantage. On the other hand, the Merc does not have a large chunk of carbon fibre disturbing that air flow, and causing eddies in it. More so, the evidence of the Merc beating the crap out of the force india with the same engine seems to suggest that Force India's car is not anywhere close to as good as Merc's. I'd suggest strongly that Merc's engineers did a better job of designing the car as a whole, and hence are likely to have done a better job of designing the nose too. They went significantly out of their way to keep that design of nose, when it would have been relatively trivial for them to switch, so there's almost certainly something that you don't know that makes Merc's design better.

As I've said before, it's not a coincidence that the top 3 teams (at least in terms of aero) are using very similar nose philosophies.

ringo wrote:

beelsebob wrote:

ringo wrote:For all we know ferrari may come with a force India nose. It's the better design for maximising airflow.
Mercedes solution is sound, but there's no proof it's the best.

As you say, there's no proof it's the best... So why are you asserting that the Force India's is the best as a proven fact?

It is logically the better choice. There is no logic for the Mercedes nose, one that is lower, to be better.

In a corner the finger will block quite a bit of airflow, not to mention most of the teams who run with a finger have a nice bump on the underside, doesn't sound really great for airflow.

The Mercedes' nose has got absolutely nothing in the way, zero obstruction. It lacks nose height, but it retains the smooth shape and there are no weird pointy things in the way.

But then we get further to it. You simply cannot isolate the nose alone. The whole front aero works together, the vanes under the nose shield the airflow from the front wheel, and the vortices shed by the front wing will prevent mixing of the airflow further down. It is the quality that counts.

wesley123 wrote:For the gurney of the rear wing maybe, but it isn't really useful since the gurney isn't mandatory.

Oak's solution was driven by the mandatory gurney and it's effect on drag. So to reduce the drag created, they added those bulges, where effectively, the gurney could be bent backwards, reducing drag.

True. Complementing.

- The result, according to Chapelain, is the same level of downforce for slightly less drag.
- Chapelain also indicates that there is some negative interaction from the bumps (flow separations), but not enough to take away from the positives.
Christophe Chapelain - Oak Racing's Technical Director

I liked the creativity and simplicity of this team.
The surface with bumps, can be useful on the surface of the car.

I have a doubt:
A similar front created by Lotus (twin-tusk)
the tusk can take the form of "L"?

Giando wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2013, 15:52

Schifty wrote:

djos wrote:Ouch, that nose looks woeful!!

Hehehe, blown monkey seats are going to be fun!!!

Ok first of all, that stupid nose will never saw the sun light. F1 team care of aerodynasmism yes but also the general look of the car. The will be just lower thats it.... no tiny ''dick'' will get out of the nose to be ''legal'' on 2014 regulation.

Are you sure? Stepped nose were an example of teams taking care of general look, then? Uhm...

We don't have any evidence about anything yet, so i wouldn't exclude the possibility of the ugly one to see the sunlight.

Very funny to read this post in 2021

(just for fun guys, no 'revenge' spirit!)

Wow, waiting over 7 years to reply. They do say that revenge is a dish served cold, but this one is frozen solid!