F1technical.net

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



*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.

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.

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

like much of it, especially open engine bay.

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.

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!