F1technical.net

This mini wing on top of the nosecone could produce downforce, if you think about the net effect- downforce is produced when air is deflected upwards. If you angled it so more air was pushed upwards than without it (by the car as a whole, not just this little bit), then downforce is produced.

However, you would need a fairly steep angle on it to do anything, as air coming out the back of it would hit the driver and air intake unless really fired upwards.
So steep angle=more drag for very little more downforce= you would do better to put a few turns more front wing on.

It might have a use in directing the air flow over the driver and intake though, in a way similar to the horns on the mclarens a few years back, that directed air onto the rear wing.

joseff wrote:- suck the little wing down
- suck the nosecone up

According to what you wrote biplanes could never fly. Pressure on top of the little wing is higher than pressure between it and the nose and below the nose you have again lower pressure than one on top of the nose. So, I say downforce.

Your design is very much different from a biplane. What you have is a wing in the proximity of a very large object. Yes, the wing will produce a bit of downforce, but if you moved this wing away from the nose it would produce even more.

It's really a wing running in "ground effect"; a wing close to the ground will produce more lift/downforce, but that's because it's directly interacting with the ground via the pressure field. If you then have to also take into account the force on the ground itself (the nose in this case), the effect is nullified.

The net effect you are likely to get is therefore similar to the wing bit running on its own in freestream, and almost certainly no more than that.

manchild wrote:Small wing shaped part on top would generate downforce since between it and the rest of the nose Venturi shape would cause low pressure zone. Existence of that small wing on top just above the zone of low pressure generates downforce and prevents low pressure from lifting nose upwards. When I was thinking about this idea I had in mind reduction of upforce generated by conventionally curved nose. Another benefit would be lowered COG and perhaps more downforce generated in corners relative to conventional noses.

You have to remember that you can't consider any single element of the car on it's own. All parts of the system interact with all the other parts. Setting aside the fact you've drawn a lifting surface in your diagram, not a downforce-generating one, your arrangement would cause an increase in drag and a loss in overall front downforce as it would disrupt the airflow over the rear part of the nose behind your duct. I have to say, you have some odd preconceptions about how current aero works - the whole point of the raised nose arrangement is that the nose as a whole generates downforce, not lift.

I'm not sure why you think the arrangement would aid directional stability, as it's highly dependent on air coming in on the center axis of the car, which would be disrupted as soon as car turned. Your suggestion that you're lowering COG isn't true either - you're adding a lot of structure up there for your wing, so you'd actually be raising COG.

Manchild, I have give you credit for being enthusiastic about your ideas, and I think your photoshop work is beautiful, but you really have no idea about how aerodynamics works.

Could you backup your claims and explain why current nose creates more downforce than the one I suggested?

I also don't understand how you can say that my suggestion would bring COG higher when what I basically suggested was to lower the thick and heavy top of the nose down, with adding only small hollow wing which would remain on height of current nose.




I guess me not having idea how aero works is best proved by me guessing the shape of R28 nose and original nose idea that's now all over the web.

I'm not aerodynamicist and I can't test shape that comes to my mind so I present it to the experts here, but I'm very well aware of basic principles of aerodynamics.

Thanks for the photoshop compliments although I've never used it in my life.

I'll admit, I was going to be the first to gloriously shoot this idea down. I thought about it and tried to grasp all of the forces (cancelled or otherwise) and the more I thought about it, the more I convinced myself that the net downforce would be unchanged. I hadn't been convinced 100%, however. The only change I could garantee was an increase in drag.

I ran a few 2D CFD tests recently and the results were interesting. In all of my tests, the design with the "cut-out" showed an increase in drag and a reduction in lift. I plan on conducting similar tests this week with a full 3D nose cone model. Stay tuned.

manchild wrote:Could you backup your claims and explain why current nose creates more downforce than the one I suggested?

If the nose is working correctly, air is traveling faster under the nose than above it, over (more or less) the whole length of the nose. This generates downforce. With your slot, as the air seperates from the rear of the aerofoil and tunnel it becomes turbulent, disrupting the flow over the rear of the nose and reducing the downforce generated at the rear of the nose. So you're trading the tiny area of the wing surface off against the much larger area of the nose. Net loss of downforce.

manchild wrote:I also don't understand how you can say that my suggestion would bring COG higher when what I basically suggested was to lower the thick and heavy top of the nose down, with adding only small hollow wing which would remain on height of current nose.

It's a construction issue. Your suggestion reduces the consistent cross-section of the nose, requiring it to be of heavier construction to maintain stiffness and remain a viable crash structure. The guide structures on the side/top of the nose will have to be solidly constructed to support the wing, adding further weight. It's not quite up to your standard, but I've done a little diagram:

manchild wrote:I guess me not having idea how aero works is best proved by me guessing the shape of R28 nose and original nose idea that's now all over the web.

Thanks for the photoshop compliments although I've never used it in my life.

Well, whatever you use - I think the professionalism of the art is half the reason why your concept has had such widespread dissemination.

slimjim, I'm afraid that cut out 2D CFD can't give proper answer since just like with previous idea if you test cut out than you don't get venturi effect since the sidewalls are missing. I mean its all about pressure and if you run CFD on 2D than you don't get accurate data about what would happen if real venturi zone would exist. Right?

BTW, increased drag + reduced lift = more downforce?

EDIT: I've overlooked your mentioning of upcoming 3D test. Sorry, staying tuned

If it would save you time, perhaps you could import Google sketchup F1 car model in CAD program you're using? I know it can be done but nothing further than that.

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/ ... revstart=0#

or this one

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/ ... revstart=0

shawness, it could perfectly fulfill safety and structural stiffness demands if made like lower drawing shows. Not just the COG but the overall weight of nose could be reduced too since vertical sides that extend above the ceiling of the nose could be made much thinner or even hollow. Lower construction with all 4 sides closed is even stronger than similar construction with same wall thickness. Therefore, the boxy part of the nose could be made with thinner walls which would bring even greater reduction of weight while maintaining identical impact absorption capabilities. The bigger the box the thicker the walls and opposite.



Regrading nose cone concept; when I uploaded it in August it was a sipmple drawing and quick illistration not meant to fool anyone since it was bad quality. I've done artwork after reports in Autosprint appeared. Than came Autosport and Piola. If I'm dumb for aero than I guess you could say the same thing about Piola and Autosprint & Autosport journalists.

I agree with manchild, I really doubt the construction or especially weight would be an issue with this design, it's all about the aero for this one. There's a huge difference in the height and shape between the RA108's nose and the MP4-23's nose, but neither of them have trouble with construction/weight/crash testing in that area. I can only share this opinion since I don't know the aero details. Cheers, and I hope everyone is having a good weekend!

Manchild, as with most 2D simulations, unless the system in question is truly 2D (an airplane wing...and even that is a stretch since back sweeping/end effects/fuselage effects are not taken into account), 2D simulations are best for conceptualization/prelim testing. For this design to be tested properly, the whole front nose cone + wings must be simulated. But from my nose cone-only 2D tests, I did see a consistent reduction in life (more downforce) and an increase in drag. It may not be worth much in the long run, but it is what it is...

The full 3D testing will tell a much better tale. Good find on the Google Sketch-Up models. I'll see if I can use them this week. I already have a nice (if simplified) F1 car model that I've been messing around with for a while:



Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the nose cone really a structural piece involved in crash energy absorbtion? From what I can tell, the whole nose cone seems to be a simple exoskeleton designed to withstand little more than aerodynamic forces at track speeds. Seems like front wings and aero bits are constantly being sheared off the car in minor collisions. Perhaps the nose cone body itself has some form of internal crash absobrtion qualities.

Again, the only thing I can say with certainty at this point is that the addition of an in-nose-cone wing will increase the overall drag. Design changes at the very front of the car, however small, have a more extreme effect than at any other area.

slimjim8201 wrote:Manchild, as with most 2D simulations, unless the system in question is truly 2D (an airplane wing...and even that is a stretch since back sweeping/end effects/fuselage effects are not taken into account), 2D simulations are best for conceptualization/prelim testing. For this design to be tested properly, the whole front nose cone + wings must be simulated. But from my nose cone-only 2D tests, I did see a consistent reduction in life (more downforce) and an increase in drag. It may not be worth much in the long run, but it is what it is...

The full 3D testing will tell a much better tale. Good find on the Google Sketch-Up models. I'll see if I can use them this week. I already have a nice (if simplified) F1 car model that I've been messing around with for a while.

Unfortunately, '2D' CFD isn't going to give anything like accurate results, because as you rightly point out, the the world is in 3D This is particularly true of F1, where there's barely a flat surface anywhere these days.

You can't use just a nose either - it would be great if you could get accurate results modeling discreet parts of the car, but to get the right numbers you have to simulate the whole car (well, half, anyway ). One of the most counter-intuitive things in aerodynamics is that the back of the car affects how the air goes over the front - it's a single, interconnected system.The other thing I noticed from the streamlines you've plotted (Are you showing cp or velocity there? It looks like cp.) is that you haven't got the wheels rotating, which you really, really need for accuracy.

As regards google sketchup, I wouldn't put too much faith in any models you find online, as they've been made by 3D modellers to look right, not be aerodyamically accurate. Even if they were reasonably physically accurate, they're unlikely to have enough detail to produce a mesh of sufficient density to be useful (You're aiming at around 30m cells for useful F1 modelling.)

slimjim8201 wrote:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the nose cone really a structural piece involved in crash energy absorbtion? From what I can tell, the whole nose cone seems to be a simple exoskeleton designed to withstand little more than aerodynamic forces at track speeds. Seems like front wings and aero bits are constantly being sheared off the car in minor collisions. Perhaps the nose cone body itself has some form of internal crash absobrtion qualities?

The nosecone is the primary frontal impact absorbing structure. It has to be, because right behind the bulkhead where the nose attaches to the tub is the driver's feet! Trust me, there are no 'minor' impacts in F1. What looks like a little scrape on TV is a crash that would likely kill you if you were in a Ford Fiesta. The front wing on an F1 car is freakishly strong. If the car was suspended from a crane, two adults could hang from EACH END of the wing without it breaking. Snapping one off requires major forces.

slimjim8201 wrote:Again, the only thing I can say with certainty at this point is that the addition of an in-nose-cone wing will increase the overall drag. Design changes at the very front of the car, however small, have a more extreme effect than at any other area.

Absolutely right.

manchild wrote:shawness, it could perfectly fulfill safety and structural stiffness demands if made like lower drawing shows. Not just the COG but the overall weight of nose could be reduced too since vertical sides that extend above the ceiling of the nose could be made much thinner or even hollow. Lower construction with all 4 sides closed is even stronger than similar construction with same wall thickness. Therefore, the boxy part of the nose could be made with thinner walls which would bring even greater reduction of weight while maintaining identical impact absorption capabilities. The bigger the box the thicker the walls and opposite.

I don't even know where to start. Please explain to me the physical principles where lowering the nose and making it of smaller cross section allows you to thin the structure.

shawness wrote:I don't even know where to start. Please explain to me the physical principles where lowering the nose and making it of smaller cross section allows you to thin the structure.

I thought it is more than logical. A rectangle or a pipe shaped object, whatever, which has diameter of 5 inch is much stronger than one with diameter of 50 inches if they are made of identical thickness material. So, if thickness of current Ferrari nose is for example 1 inch and if the cross section is reduced that would allow thinner walls (less weight). As simple as that.

That is the complete reverse of my understanding of getting stiffness from a section (I use the word stiffness instead of strength in case I am missing your point ).

A large section structure can be stiffer with a thinner skin; the problem comes when the skin become thin enough to be susceptible to damage. This the same principle that is used with a honeycomb between two skins, the thin skins separated by a light weight core have far greater stiffness as a structure than the individual components. The thicker the core, the greater the stiffness without a corresponding increase in weight.

Anyway - I think this part of the discussion is a red herring - no doubt putting holes through the structure will affect it's strength. BUT I am sure it's not insurmountable and the benefit against any possible cost in weight (I do say "possible" ) would be looked at by the engineers before deciding if an idea like this is a net performance gain or not. I doubt any of us know how much the weight of the nose will change, so it's a pointless avenue of debate.

For my answer I would look to the rumour that Ferrari are actually looking at a solution very similar to Manchild's original idea (probably a rumour that has some foundation) - a hole that big has to have a big effect on strength, yet if they are pursuing it the weight cost cannot the greater than the aero benefit.

Let me put it this way.

You've all seen how aluminum beer kegs look like (and drank many)? Right? Well, they are made of around 3 or 5 mm thick aluminum. You can stand on top of such keg and it won't collapse under your weight.



You've also all seen a beer aluminum can (and drank even more). You can also stand on top if empty beer can and it won't collapse under your weight.

That's my point. If you reduce size you reduce weight too since reduced size requires less material. Or ask yourself why do they make beer cans of such thin aluminum and why do they use much thicker aluminum for kegs that can both withstand human weight.

Now, I know there'll be some replies "are you nuts, how can you not crash beer can if you step on it...". Do this, take one small unpunched empty beer can, coke can, whatever. Put in on the flat solid surface and carefully step with one foot on top of it. You can hold yourself to something or someone in order to do this carefully.



Why make it 3 or 5 mm thick when it can withstand force being less than 0.5 mm thick? Keg would collapse if made as thin as can but can doesn't. Get my point?