F1technical.net

Well some of the reasons that a Murcielago looks better than a Peugeot 3008 is that the Murcielago is a lot wider, lower, and has fatter tires.

By those criteria any early 90's F1 car (like this MP4/8) will look better than the current ones.

But if you like a car to look sleek or angular is your own preference I suppose.

I remember back in 1993 everybody called the Benetton the ugly duckling because it was the only car with a high nose. Now all cars have high noses, but I still doubt anyone would call the B193 beautiful today compared to its rivals in '93.

gold333 wrote:All we have today are cars that look like they have broken noses.

I've been waiting 20 years for an F1 car to be shaped like this again.

Mp4/8 and Ferrari 412 T2 (1995) are most beautiful car i ever seen. I miss these low nose.

Gorgeous, sleek, simple, effective. Damn, i can go to work with these car everyday, even if it's break my back with the hard suspension

Yeah I agree. The same thing happened in Indycar:



It's like witnessing the reverse of what happened to F1 between 1975 and 1995.
Like they went back 20 years instead of foreward.

Top pic = 1993 Bottom pic = 2010

The 1993 Indycar is wider, has wider tires, is lower, has a higher top speed and has hundreds of more horsepower. By all accounts it is simply a better racecar. (Minus of course 20 years in tire and safety technology.) But they used to run in packs drafting at 257mph (411 kph) at Michigan in '98 using the Hanford device. Until 4 spectators got killed. Now we're stuck with the bottom picture.

I don't get it, if the FIA wants to regulate that cars go slower why not force the use of low noses. (rounded too if you want to eliminate the launching effect). Bam, cars are beautiful again, TV ratings go through the roof and they are slower and safer.

the brawn gp had a very low nose, i love this car!

Can someone explain in laymans terms why some teams this year (Caterham, Ferrari) opt to have the first piece of the nose parallel to the ground and have the front drop down abruptly to the height mandated by the FIA? This causes the hideous nose designs we are seeing.

Why not gradually taper the first part of the nose so it is a smooth transition like the McLaren? This should cause MUCH less drag than the "abrupt hump" we are seeing shouldn't it?

I don't (aerodynamically) understand the reasoning for having the first part of the nose parallel to the ground. Why is that so important as opposed to tapering down slightly so it meets the nose in a smooth transition?

If it were to taper down all the way like McLaren, the front bulkhead would need to be much lower than previous years. The higher bulkhead allows more airflow under the nose, which leads to numerous advantages.

Well I got this hideously wrong.

I hope the rules are changed for 2013.

I'd mandate lower nose tips, wider noses, and shorter noses in the regulations, and do this by lowering the bulkhead and giving a max tip height, and areas etc...

These cars are ugly as, although it's just the bump, The F2012 would look amazing it it weren't for 'the bump'...

I never thought the noses are ugly. Call me 1 in a million, maybe. But that ferrari nose tip looks really nice and thin. If they channelled the central section like SFI and Caterham, it would look gd. I never thought the 'platypus' looked bad, from a designers perspective. As an F1 fan, I see where you're coming from.

From a designers perspective they are not ideal at all.

Mandate lower dash or front bulkheads please Mr Todt.

Of course not, because there are such strict limits. However with the regulations set, I see this as the best option. I am quite certain though they will change the rules, even stricter so we don't get these bumps for 2013, to create a better 'show'. General viewers want to see cars that look good.

just gorgeous cars

cossie wrote:just gorgeous cars

Yeah. The 1993 Penske PC22 and the 1993 McLaren MP4/8 are in my top 5 beautiful cars ever. Round curves seemed more organic and feminime in a way, and they were lower and wider than today. It's like designs went downhill after '93. Wonder if some F1 teams are going to try some more rounded designs for the nose in 2012 and beyond.



PS It's funny how the Marlboro livery always looks red and white on old camera's where in reality its fluorescent orange and white.

Hmm, I just think they look too fat to me :L but then again, I'm only 15... a good few years older and maybe I'd understand I grew up with the narrower, higher nose, and that's what I prefer

turbo's with 1000bhp sweet engines

jordangp wrote:If it were to taper down all the way like McLaren, the front bulkhead would need to be much lower than previous years. The higher bulkhead allows more airflow under the nose, which leads to numerous advantages.

I don't understand this nose regulation AT ALL

If the hump is designed because they want the part of the nosecose aft of the front axle as high as possible to maximize airflow under the car, and therefore cause the abrupt drop in the nose forward of the front axle, creating the hump.

Surely the minimum height of the entire nosecone is determined by it's bottom and not it's top surface? By that reasoning shouldn't the hump be on the bottom of the nose instead of the top?

What am I not understanding?





Look at those pics of F2012 vs F150: the nose height is almost identical, as is the airflow under it. Why not make the bottom as high as you want to ensure airflow and ALSO taper the top smoothly without the grotesque hump?