F1technical.net

David Fraser wrote:I'm a little late into this but it's intriguing to see the different fees that are being floated. Has anyone an insight into what the teams are actually going for?

3 or 4 are doing the finger nose. RBR are doing something different. Don't know about the rest.

Owen.C93 wrote: 3 or 4 are doing the finger nose. RBR are doing something different. Don't know about the rest.

Where have you got this information?

turbof1 wrote:

wuzak wrote:The aero benefit is that you can have, in reality, much more airflow underneath the nose. You are basicilly simulating pre-2014 noses. Compromised, of course, due much thicker pylons. The 'finger nose' design tries to achieve the same thing, but does block the airflow in the centre. The sabretooth solution does not, but then again blocks more airflow at the sides.

The problem that I see with this approach is in the severity of the compromise.
since you need a minimum width of 78,26mm and with a syymetric vanity panel would have twice that you would have a blocked width of 156,52mm.
That is roughly half the front bulkhead width.
Too much blockage IMHO to gain anything.

I would rather see a combination of the Blanchimont Type nose with the snowplow/T-Tray design where both elements together satisify the 9000 mm^2 allowing a thin central Finger/Pylon plus a rather thin horizontal tray to which the FW pylons are attached on the lower side. I haven't seen anything in the rules that would prevent that.

giorgia piolas animation
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jSTNd6Mqqs[/youtube]

henra wrote:

turbof1 wrote:

wuzak wrote:The aero benefit is that you can have, in reality, much more airflow underneath the nose. You are basicilly simulating pre-2014 noses. Compromised, of course, due much thicker pylons. The 'finger nose' design tries to achieve the same thing, but does block the airflow in the centre. The sabretooth solution does not, but then again blocks more airflow at the sides.

The problem that I see with this approach is in the severity of the compromise.
since you need a minimum width of 78,26mm and with a syymetric vanity panel would have twice that you would have a blocked width of 156,52mm.
That is roughly half the front bulkhead width.
Too much blockage IMHO to gain anything.

I would rather see a combination of the Blanchimont Type nose with the snowplow/T-Tray design where both elements together satisify the 9000 mm^2 allowing a thin central Finger/Pylon plus a rather thin horizontal tray to which the FW pylons are attached on the lower side. I haven't seen anything in the rules that would prevent that.

Totally agree that the blockage is bad but depending on how much you can rob from the pylon that the nose butts upto you can reduce that blockage by upto 40mm.

@henra same here, was considering interpretations more in the 'spirit' of the rules (whatever that means), these arent to scale and rely on the blachimont type approach but the main nose body is neutral wing profile but vertical and curved to give the shape defined by rules from side but a narrow cross section until it meets the B type vanity panel to cover up the akward union to the chassis section, thinking along the lines of tyrells 25 nose.. and the aircraft carrier bow suggested earlier in the thread edit* i know the top of the vanity panel/B type wedge wouldnt be horizontal on top...

neilbah wrote:http://i.imgur.com/MvbHKJm.jpg

Yup. That was exactly what I had in my mind.

Matt Somers wrote: Totally agree that the blockage is bad but depending on how much you can rob from the pylon that the nose butts upto you can reduce that blockage by upto 40mm.

How could you take 40mm off this width while complying to the rules?

neilbah wrote:in the 'spirit' of the rules (whatever that means)

The spirit of the rules is what the rules are trying to achieve.

For example, the low nose regulations for 2014 are intended to lower the chassis to reduce the incidence of the nose of a car climbing over another car (like MS at Abbu Dhabi a couple of years back). Clearly many of these nose designs follow the letter of the rule, but not the spirit (even the finger nose would be marginal in stopping the type of incident that the rule was intended to prevent).

indeed, wuzak.
In FIA's place i would forbid the use of vanity panels without a doubt. ...i don't think any pilot would like to receive a sharp panel with a car behind at 200km/h straight into his helmet...
With finger type nose, the spirit of the rule is obviously not respected.

But, yes, this is another topic.

henra wrote:

Matt Somers wrote: Totally agree that the blockage is bad but depending on how much you can rob from the pylon that the nose butts upto you can reduce that blockage by upto 40mm.

How could you take 40mm off this width while complying to the rules?

Shave it out of the pylons, the pylon has a maximum width of 25mm but no minimum, design the pylon to accept say 20mm of the tooth section and when the two are placed together you still get the rigidity. The vanity panel on the opposing side simply has to look like the main tooth and so the other pylon can be solid whilst the vanit panel mirrors the the main tooths 20mm reduction = an extra 40mm of centralized airflow space. Of course I'm going to an extreme at 20mm that might not be achievable but it's to illustrate how you rob Peter to pay Paul.

I know you guys aren't the biggest fans of the rear wing being mounted to the rear crash structure using pylons, but I suspect we'll see more than one team going down this route, albeit with the swan neck mount(s) on the upper surface.

It might simplify the routing of the DRS control.

I think I'd rather have a 2013 nose coming at the side of my cockpit than a 2014 finger nose!

The much smaller tip area would surely punch a hole thru the side of a tub much more easily than a 2013 "wide" nose would in the same way a nail has more penetrating power than a large tent peg!

djos wrote:The much smaller tip area would surely punch a hole thru the side of a tub much more easily than a 2013 "wide" nose would in the same way a nail has more penetrating power than a large tent peg!

Not really. The nose is designed to absorb energy and crumble on impact. Your tent peg is not designed for any of that.

Tub will always win the battle as well.

You are probably correct, just looks more dangerous.