volarchico wrote: We were specifically talking about the V nose and what its purpose is. Scarbs interviewed the designer of the feature as to what its purpose was so there is not really any room for argument. Perhaps it has changed in 2 years? There may be other reasons for it now, and you won't find any argument from me. So go ahead and argue on about the weaknesses of the V nose all you want. I'm not part of that conversation.
This is a RB7 thread, so I was never talking specifically about the V nose, because the car doesn't have a drastic V nose.
We all know of the purpose of the V nose, and it's benefits.
I was talking about an issue with V nose that involves the suspension. Then i was pounced upon.
I added that the 2011 regs does not rule out V nose designs, and the change to a flatter nose and zero keel suspension; with a hint of v nose, was simply an improvement.
Scarbs said this:
Raising a rectangular nose to a similar height excessively raises CofG and also provides a less attractive wishbone mounting.
and i am not putting him on the spot, because this is valid. But this was 2009, Newey wouldn't have to encounter the problem of similar height until 2 years time.
And there was migration to less atractive wishbone mounting and rectangular tub as well.
Now these regulations do not rule out a V nose design as i said, or single keel. It just means an extreme V nose is curtailed, and bringing it in line to compete on the same level as a rectangular nose.
The benefits of the V nose were probably so delicate, the change to lift the whole rectangular nose with the zero keel instead had more aerodynamc gains. We can still see a hint of it on the 7 anyway.
just for observation on the changes to front, and mid body, i'm not making a point with these photos.
