F1technical.net

I always thought the main reason for having a high nose was for removing convergeance between front wings.As you move up the bodywork considerable area is unrestricted and allows air to flow cleaner towards the middle and rear section of the car.It was always maintained that it really did not help front downforce much...

If it was turned into something resembling a front diffuser the nose could give quite a bit of DF I think. It is possible under the current regs but not very well. Pre-2009 it would have been easier but I think it may disrupt airflow towards the rear of the car to much. Certainly getting the nose clear of the FW is the main concern but it doesn't need to be very high for that (especially now) so getting air to the rear of the car his why they are now very high.

At least the Lotus bottle/dolphin style nose isn't that bad. Plus since it's copying nature you know it has to be good.

hole to minimize disruption on top of the nose so that air quality to rear wing is better, maybe thats why mclaren is quick.

1 mclaren doesn't have a hole there

2 that top hole would have to be further back like redbulls'

[quote="MIKEY_!"]1 mclaren doesn't have a hole there

2 that top hole would have to be further back like redbulls'[/quote]

1) McLaren's nose has smooth airflow hence it feeds the rear with better quality air unlike all the broken nose where air quality would not be as good but more flow undernose..

2) I'm not quite sure if Red Bulls vent goes out the bottom.

So why the picture of the ferrari nose with MS paint ducting? The suspension bits would be in the way of this duct anyway it it were far back enough to be legal. Unless you could excuse the hole as cooling for the suspension, then the hole could be that far forward and the duct could exit under the nose as shown.

Okay, so here's a world first (I think).







I can't claim the original idea as my own, that belongs to Wesley123, but here is the 'Inverted V Nose'. This effectively turns the front bulkhead upside down, increase the area undernose, consequentially making nose tips higher, to follow the current trend. I know it's ugly, but there are some potential benefits.

Pros: Higher nose tip (Max allowed of 550mm gives ironing board look)
Suspension mounting points remain in the same position
Reduction in spill to the sides of the chassis of critical flow (I think!)
Reduced weight compared to conventional bulkheads (E.G No V nose)
Could provide a nice mounting point for under nose turning vanes


Cons: Higher centre of gravity, as internal suspension components need to be raised
No space to add a V nose on the top of the chassis, meaning spill and other issues (maybe?)
Ugly, deters sponsors
May be of no benefit (I don't have CFD vision)


I can show images with more of a car to give some perspective, but I don't know if its worth the time. It'd be nice to hear thoughts, and get some theory in, as I think this could actually work.

I thought the front bulkhead needs to have a certain area/ size, would that not make this idea illegal? also whats your radius on the v?

N12ck wrote:I thought the front bulkhead needs to have a certain area/ size, would that not make this idea illegal?

No certain leeway is given for V noses.

The wording of the regulations is too vague, which allows the V nose. I gather that V noses will be banned from 2014.



I have basically inverted this shape at the bulkhead, so it should be legal.

Image courtesy of scarbs via his blog.
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/2 ... gulations/

I see, Im not sure the benefits are that huge, for example, mclaren have a low nose and they are doing great, having that little bit more air going to the splitter cant be a bad thing, but I dont see a massive advantage, and im concerned the nose is too thin, which means your nose would have to end earlier (as ferrari's does. Brilliant idea though

Thanks for your response
Nicky

wow Tozza great work! the nose looks pretty good, although you might need a sauber style hole on the top of the tub.

Also you could easily claim the idea as your own, I had completely forgotten about the idea!

wesley123 wrote:wow Tozza great work! the nose looks pretty good, although you might need a sauber style hole on the top of the tub.

Also you could easily claim the idea as your own, I had completely forgotten about the idea!

if he put a sauber nose hole in, it would destroy the whole point of having the v shape under the nose, as the nose hole would take up the space gained by the v shape

wesley123 wrote:wow Tozza great work! the nose looks pretty good, although you might need a sauber style hole on the top of the tub.

Also you could easily claim the idea as your own, I had completely forgotten about the idea!

Yes, sadly, adding a hole in the top, will mean that the V will have to be shallower. This is due to the minimum bulkhead size.

The point of the concept was to get a higher volume of clean air to the splitter.

What the benefits of this are, I'd like to know! It's just a reaction to current trends.

I think the ramp underneath is going to be detrimental to the flow under the nose creating a net reduction to the performance of the splitter, etc.

Brian