A low-nose for modern F1

Post here information about your own engineering projects, including but not limited to building your own car or designing a virtual car through CAD.
Post Reply
roon
412
Joined: 17 Dec 2016, 19:04

A low-nose for modern F1

Post

Hearing of the rumored demise of front-axle KERS within the next evolution of the formula, and considering the technology's apparent packaging difficulty within a high-nose chassis, I began to wonder what a low-nose car, in the modern context, would look like. A low-nose chassis would allow the packaging of a motor & drivetrain below front-wheel centerline, rather than above it.

Dropping the nose down introduces various cascading after-effects, perhaps most significantly to the aerodynamic philosophy. Low-noses were specifically abandoned more than two decades ago in the interest of improving aerodynamic efficiency. A return to such a layout would entail not-necessarily a return to reduced efficiency, but would certainly entail a need to drastically alter the aero philosophy.

While illustrating this idea I also came upon a different interpretation of the 'halo' cockpit intrusion protection device, due out out next year.

Summary of the features proposed:

-front chassis bulkhead placed below front wheel centerline
-MGU-K within chassis, between front wheels
-relocated front wing placed behind the now lowered suspension arms*
-no-bodywork-above-engine provision for visual interest
-cockpit intrusion protection in the form a robust convex mirror-bar
-no bodywork above tire height (except airbox, roll hoop, and mirror-bar) to improve rearward visibility
-diffusor termination ahead of rear axle to accommodate lowered rear wing

Image

*Suspension arms below wheel centerline would interfere with the low pressure expansion region behind the rear wing. I chose to place the front wing behind the suspension arms & half-shafts so that they interfere with the high pressure upper surface of the wing. Probably not ideal. A more optimized front wing & suspension arm complex could surely be arranged.

Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: A low-nose for modern F1

Post

It would be more simple to just go for a larger diameter wheel and have in-wheel hub generators as part of a regen braking system. Motor/generators would allow for four wheel drive too which might be an interesting change.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Tommy Cookers
617
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: A low-nose for modern F1

Post

that would be importing another level of covert 4 wheel ABS and traction control effect
a pretence of neutrality based on steady-state characteristics - but the dynamic characteristic are inherently ABS/TC emulatory
if the load suddenly reduces the mapped torque (tending to wheelspin or locking) will not be developed as the synchronicity will fail
this would be happening in a wheel load specific way and so 'steer' when cornering

and the much heavier wheels would be much more dangerous when detached in a crash

bill shoe
151
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 08:18
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: A low-nose for modern F1

Post

like much of it, especially open engine bay.

Nonserviam85
6
Joined: 17 May 2013, 11:21

Re: A low-nose for modern F1

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
19 Oct 2017, 09:25
It would be more simple to just go for a larger diameter wheel and have in-wheel hub generators as part of a regen braking system. Motor/generators would allow for four wheel drive too which might be an interesting change.
Adding all this unsprung weight will drive the chassis engineers crazy. The handling will be a nightmare. In-wheel motor-generators might be ok for trams, trains and Priuses but it is an absolute nightmare for motorsports especially Formula 1.

User avatar
Zynerji
111
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: A low-nose for modern F1

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
19 Oct 2017, 10:25
that would be importing another level of covert 4 wheel ABS and traction control effect
a pretence of neutrality based on steady-state characteristics - but the dynamic characteristic are inherently ABS/TC emulatory
if the load suddenly reduces the mapped torque (tending to wheelspin or locking) will not be developed as the synchronicity will fail
this would be happening in a wheel load specific way and so 'steer' when cornering

and the much heavier wheels would be much more dangerous when detached in a crash
I'm ok with ABS of its recharging the batteries. AWD with vector steering, please!

Post Reply