Page 1 of 1
2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 13:17
by ESPImperium
I have noticed a simmilarity between a few diffrent designs for 2009. Thin Vs Fat, High Vs Low.
High noses:
RB5/STR4
TF109
F60
FW31
F1.09
VJM-02
Low Ones:
MP4-24
BGP001
R29
Thin Ones:
RB5/STR4
TF109
F60
FW31
VJM-02
Fat Ones:
F1.09
R29
BGP001
MP4-24
I can see this being a battle ground as much as the diffuser shape for this year.
Whats your view on this part of aero design for this year.
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 13:19
by Scotracer
My view: they are all ugly
I'm interested to see why a fat nose has been used this year when last year everyone had a thin one.
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 14:29
by xpensive
Sometmes I wonder what it would be like for an F1 designer to follow certain threads on this forum?
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 17:03
by Sawtooth-spike
Taken from a recent autosport interview
Q. Are teams allowed to run with batteries in the nose cone area?
Max Mosley: As far as I know, yes. There are regulations about what part you can put in what part of the car. I understand that one of the manufacturers is making a special battery which goes where the ballast goes, but obviously it is not as heavy as tungsten. I think most of them are going to put the entire system inside the fuel tank.
However, if one of those batteries goes into thermal runaway you need to get it out of the car – but we have left it to the experts. The last thing someone like me should do is second guess them, but they must make sure it is safe – and that is what we have the Working Group for.
I found this very interesting. I am thinking renult or maybe BMW. Its not Red bull as they have said theres is under there fuel tank. It cant be Williams as they have a fly wheel.
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 19:14
by Callum
It could be renault... but i havnnt seen any nose cooling holes in any cars..
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 12 Feb 2009, 14:13
by Fil
Red Bull are buying the system co-developed by Renault/Magnetti Marelli as part of the engine/drivetrain package. so they'd be running the same system setup.
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 09 Mar 2009, 06:35
by megz
Would the teams be able to mount one of the compulsory TV cameras between the front wing pillars? Would lower the centre of gravity and could have some kind of aero advantage would it not?
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 09 Mar 2009, 10:40
by axle
ESP, can you please update your first post?
Brawn - low fat nose
FW31 - more like the F60 now...
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 09 Mar 2009, 11:47
by ESPImperium
axle wrote:ESP, can you please update your first post?
Brawn - low fat nose
FW31 - more like the F60 now...
Done. Also included the VJM-02 as well.
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 09 Mar 2009, 11:51
by axle
ESPImperium wrote:axle wrote:ESP, can you please update your first post?
Brawn - low fat nose
FW31 - more like the F60 now...
Done. Also included the VJM-02 as well.
Thanks
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 10 Mar 2009, 08:45
by Scania
BGP nose is very low
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 10 Mar 2009, 12:37
by Belatti
Renault may be the favourite car for Mafia. They can hide a dead body inside that nose.
I think placing the batteries inside the fuel tank is weird and dangerous, does fuel needs to be preheated, by the way?
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 10 Mar 2009, 16:31
by timbo
Belatti wrote:does fuel needs to be preheated, by the way?
You mean before the pit-stop? It appears it must be within 5 degrees of ambient temperature.
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 10 Mar 2009, 16:36
by Belatti
timbo wrote:Belatti wrote:does fuel needs to be preheated, by the way?
You mean before the pit-stop? It appears it must be within 5 degrees of ambient temperature.
No, I meant before entering the combustion chamber. Usually it has more disadvantages than advantages
Re: 2009 Nose Design Thread.
Posted: 10 Mar 2009, 18:53
by DM0407
However, if one of those batteries goes into thermal runaway you need to get it out of the car – but we have left it to the experts. The last thing someone like me should do is second guess them, but they must make sure it is safe – and that is what we have the Working Group for.
Are they talking to the right Max Mosley? I thought all he did was second guess in the name of safety? Isn't that his excuse to hack up the rules every few years?