2014 season - Ugliest noses ever?

[McMrocks]

Are there any concerns that the nose is too deep now? I mean, maybe some car gets under the barrier.

Agree that all stars have to be aligned for that to happen, but who had thought a spring will hit Massa...

[henra]

I wonder if the noses have to look like that because the new philosophy involves guiding air through the chassis.

The Problem basically is that the 2014 regulatiosn still allow for sufficient DF at the front of the car. With elimination of Beam Wing + EBD the trouble area will definitely be the rear end of the car.
Therefore everything which helps shifting DF bias to the rear will be welcome to the Designers.
Squeezing as much air as possible underneath the front of the car is an effective means to do that when most other instruments to achieve that are blocked by regulation.
This will favor as narrow as possible noses since the height is tightly regulated and doesn't leave much to play with.
The result will in the best case be something along the lines of the MP4/22ff or the Honda but in all honesty from a pure aerodynamic perspective a more radical departure from what is generally considered as beautifull might be a preferrable solution. My (not asthetical) favourite is still the cut nose albeit in a refined version.

[hecti]

I started designing a 2014 car, I have the rest of the safety cell in another file. This is only Section BB to the tip of the nose.

My Section AA & BB are at max height

Section BB to the tip of the nose is 1,875mm





The real limiting factor is the 9000mm^2 cross section 50mm behind the tip of the nose

[Holm86]

Great design hecti. This looks great. If this design is possible I don't see any reason to fear ugly noses.

[theWPTformula]

I don't think the noses will be that ugly. The main concern is the sudden drop between the chassis height (625mm) to the front bulkhead height (525mm) and then to the nose height (185mm) (all measurements from the reference plane). Vanity panels are still permitted to smoothen this profile if necessary. The design above doesn't look bad at all.

I've done a small piece on this that I will be updating on a regular basis... http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/

[ergenomic]

I think that we may see a solution along the lines of the TF109, with the tip lower and a little more rearward.

[megz]

Are there any concerns that the nose is too deep now? I mean, maybe some car gets under the barrier.

Agree that all stars have to be aligned for that to happen, but who had thought a spring will hit Massa...

A fair point and the oft mentioned MP4-22 in this thread was a car involved in an accident that fits your concerns completely if we recall Heikki Kovalainen's accident in Spain in 2008.

I'm not sure it was the nose that caused the issue but IIRC he was stuck well inside the tyre barrier for sometime and was unconscious for a while too.

[timbo]

The real limiting factor is the 9000mm^2 cross section 50mm behind the tip of the nose

Interesting. Does the funnyshape nose in this thread comply to it?

[CBeck113]

The real limiting factor is the 9000mm^2 cross section 50mm behind the tip of the nose

Interesting. Does the funnyshape nose in this thread comply to it?

That's only 95x95mm, not very bulky. I think it could.

[Holm86]

The real limiting factor is the 9000mm^2 cross section 50mm behind the tip of the nose

Interesting. Does the funnyshape nose in this thread comply to it?

That's only 95x95mm, not very bulky. I think it could.

108 mm diameter on a circle. Don't know what the diameter is on that strap-on nose.

[hecti]

The real limiting factor is the 9000mm^2 cross section 50mm behind the tip of the nose

Interesting. Does the funnyshape nose in this thread comply to it?

That's only 95x95mm, not very bulky. I think it could.

As long as that 95x95mm area is located between 135mm and 250mm above the referance plane and its center is no higher than 185mm it should be legal. Also remeber that in the nose there is a minimum radius of 10mm I believe(?? dont have the regs in front of me)

[miguelalvesreis]

Frukost:
Voting back to 0 is not exactly the same as downvoting. I think the difference should be easy to understand? I also keep on wondering what makes upvotes sacred and downvotes evil, that breaks the symmetry of the universe. And I am way off topic here.

Well, it would be upvoting if below zero or downvoting if above zero.
If you give a negative vote you´re downvoting. Final result is only the sum of all the votes and can be positive or negative independently of your personal vote.

Not criticizing any votes! Just saying!

Also way off topic

And all those posts just made me laugh evilly!!!

[henra]

That's only 95x95mm, not very bulky. I think it could.

Or 115mm high and 78,26mm wide.
That leaves still plenty of room for ugly noses...

In aircraft aerodynamics there is an old saying: If it Looks good, it will fly good.
Unfortunately that saying can easily be countered by tight ill-conceived Regulation which completely ignores aesthetic aspects or underestimates the creativtiy of designers.

[hecti]

That's only 95x95mm, not very bulky. I think it could.

Or 115mm high and 78,26mm wide.
That leaves still plenty of room for ugly noses...

In aircraft aerodynamics there is an old saying: If it Looks good, it will fly good.
Unfortunately that saying can easily be countered by tight ill-conceived Regulation which completely ignores aesthetic aspects or underestimates the creativtiy of designers.

Remember that they do have to pass crash testing. If you make a skinny, low nose, then add the moment created by the force of a crash, you are going to have to have a very rigid nose, not ideal for disbursing energy and passing the crash test.

[Hail22]

Just discovered this on F1-HR, someone named Smir Koff has posted up some rendered images comparing the 2013 car to the new 2014 and onwards Formula: