F1technical.net

slimfitcasual wrote:

theWPTformula wrote:I have recently updated the 2014 Front Wing Aerodynamics post on my blog. I've come up with a potential nose/chassis design and I think you can now see why they could be quite ugly things next year...

http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/

From your site:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/
http://thewptformula.files.wordpress.co ... pdate1.jpg

^This looks fantastic.

Let's hope that someone produces something similar!

theWPTformula wrote:Let's hope that someone produces something similar!

If one of the teams gets their sidepops as compact as that with next year's rules then they definitely deserve a pat on the back!

I agree with the other posters, your diagrams are very nice. =D>

horse wrote:

theWPTformula wrote:Let's hope that someone produces something similar!

If one of the teams gets their sidepops as compact as that with next year's rules then they definitely deserve a pat on the back!

I agree with the other posters, your diagrams are very nice. =D>

I must admit the sidepods are very optimistic! Thanks for your kind words.

This might appear to be a silly question, but what safety issues exactly are the lower noses supposed to solve? I have several incidents in my head that would strongly favour a higher nose for those very safety reasons. To name one, let's remember that Michael Schumacher was nearly decapitated in Abu Dhabi in 2010 (and I don't think I'm exaggerating).

tim|away wrote:This might appear to be a silly question, but what safety issues exactly are the lower noses supposed to solve? I have several incidents in my head that would strongly favour a higher nose for those very safety reasons. To name one, let's remember that Michael Schumacher was nearly decapitated in Abu Dhabi in 2010 (and I don't think I'm exaggerating).

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/4 ... sh_640.jpg

Low nose is for the T-bone accidents, so it doesnt climb over the sidepod and into the driver. The schumi accident and the exact same in GP2 this year at the exact same corner can happen with any nose.

Actually current specs are for T-bone. Next regs are for tire´s shooting F1 cars up in the air by being lower then the horizontal centerline of the wheel.

slimfitcasual wrote:

theWPTformula wrote:I have recently updated the 2014 Front Wing Aerodynamics post on my blog. I've come up with a potential nose/chassis design and I think you can now see why they could be quite ugly things next year...

http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/

From your site:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/
http://thewptformula.files.wordpress.co ... pdate1.jpg

^This looks fantastic.

Agreed - it does look quite good.

It also looks a bit like the McLaren MP4/27 - with a slightly lower nose.









http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4185/dcd1204ma43.jpg
http://www.nextgen-auto.com/gallery/pic ... ev/021.jpg

@theWPTformula

so you are basically having a 100mm difference under as well? your keeping the whole tub at 625 for as long as possible until dropping down to 525? a pic/drawing may help to understand what you men

low noses-

i actually think teams will set there nose (front impact structure) as far back as possible. It can be as far back at 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line. I think they will do this to increase the space under the nose.

They have the fixed central section (for the front wing) which tailors down the further back it goes (aerofoil shape). If the nose was far forward the gap between the top of the central section and underside of the nose is smaller than if the nose it further back (the nose is still centred around 185, but the top of the central section is now lower) - which would, im guessing, allow a higher volume of air through.

just an idea. and this maybe where this hook like nose idea is coming from because the nose it obviously dropping more steeply

astracrazy wrote:@theWPTformula

so you are basically having a 100mm difference under as well? your keeping the whole tub at 625 for as long as possible until dropping down to 525? a pic/drawing may help to understand what you men

low noses-

i actually think teams will set there nose (front impact structure) as far back as possible. It can be as far back at 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line. I think they will do this to increase the space under the nose.

They have the fixed central section (for the front wing) which tailors down the further back it goes (aerofoil shape). If the nose was far forward the gap between the top of the central section and underside of the nose is smaller than if the nose it further back (the nose is still centred around 185, but the top of the central section is now lower) - which would, im guessing, allow a higher volume of air through.

just an idea. and this maybe where this hook like nose idea is coming from because the nose it obviously dropping more steeply

There is a picture right at the bottom of my front wing 2014 post on my blog if you want to have a look. Technically there will be a step of 100mm beneath but this can be smoothed over, just as long as it meets the cross sectional area requirements.

Yes I've heard the same thing and I believe that it was some teams will be doing. With the nose set further back further the underside will have to rise to meet the chassis at a much steeper angle so there could be some airflow detachment for all I know.

I've done another drawing to try to explain this. As pointed out earlier, there must be a step beneath but it can be smoothed out over a greater distance. The highlighted yellow area shows the additional space that this higher chassis gives.

Whether it passes crash testing is another matter.

After discussing about this idea on this forum it would seem that it is probably an unlikely solution but one that teams could still use as it is within the regulations. The cross sectional area of the chassis is still legitimate. To re-energise potentially detached airflow along the step beneath the chassis you could place a reward facing slot at the back of the front wing that is fed by the hole in the nose tip, kind of like an S-duct but for the underside of the chassis rather than the top.



Here is what I said about this design in my updated post:

"The yellow area in the above image highlights the potential that a higher chassis layout could bring. There is quite a significant gain in volume although whether this can be exploited is another matter. Another stumbling block about this design is whether it will pass crash testing as its shape is rather irregular on the underside."

What are your thoughts?

slimfitcasual wrote: From your site:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/
http://thewptformula.files.wordpress.co ... pdate1.jpg

^This looks fantastic.

Isn't the sidepod deflector banned from next year on?

@joie
no not now (assuming you mean the turning vane)

@wtf
i wonder if its possible with my nose idea and your chassis idea to completely smooth our the curve on the underside?

Joie de vivre wrote:

slimfitcasual wrote: From your site:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/
http://thewptformula.files.wordpress.co ... pdate1.jpg

^This looks fantastic.

Isn't the sidepod deflector banned from next year on?

As far as I am aware, no. I have been told that it isn't but I've heard mixed messages.

Is this a 2014 like F1 car from lotus? The front wing seems to fit the regulation, the nose too...but can't quite see the rear end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtWFmrDoUGE

Just a 2008 car mock up. Like teams often use at show events