Nose cone idea

[manchild]

Something completely different. Any thoughts?

[Keir]

The only immediate issue I can see with that design is the packaging of the front suspension.

I'm far from an expert in aerodynamics so excuse me if I'm talking rubbish.

I would suggest that the increase in drag from that would be more than the resultant increase in d/f. Maybe keeping the flow attached to the nose section and using it further back would be more beneficial?

I think I'd have to rely on Craig to give us a more informed opinion.

[manchild]

The only immediate issue I can see with that design is the packaging of the front suspension.

What's front suspension packaging got to do with nose?

http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/DeriveenVTS.jpg

I've only edited nose, not the chassis where suspension is.

[sasquatch]

Interesting to read the comment from Gary Anderson. I am not surprised he is no longer in F1.

[manchild]

What comment, something related to this topic?

[modbaraban]

What comment, something related to this topic?

viewtopic.php?p=68487#p68487

[jaho101]

I somehow doubt this'll happen in the end, it just seems to radical for Farrari. They're so fast already, and having such a radical nose would only destabilize airflow over the cockpit and lose a lot of downforce in traffic.

[teecof1fan]

Well they still haven't introduced it (and I don't know if they will) but my thoughts on the nose....Great job on the illustrations (as usual) manchild! =D> To me, your latest illustration reminds me of a glorified bridge wing only further toward the cockpit. I personally think it will be like your earlier illustrations (and the one from autosport on page 15 of this topic) where there is a hole in the underside of the nose up through and out the top of the nose, but I was a bit confused by the discussion; after that post was made, was everyone saying it [i]won't[/i] be like that? Or was everyone just coming up with new speculation? Anyway, thanks in advance to anyone with an answer, and thanks as always for your supernatural insight manchild! (of course we'll all just have to wait to see what it really looks like!)

[manchild]

Thank you

[FGD]

I think the idea is to reduce high pressure build-up beneath the nose of the car, making the front wing more efficient at generating downforce. Adding a new wing - particularly as manchild's built-in wing illustration suggests - would likely cause further disruption of the air flowing over the length of the car.

I am new to this forum and do not want to criticize without offering-up a new solution. McLaren have apparently spent a lot of time fine-tuning the structure and aerodynamics around their roll bar/airbox inlet. Perhaps Ferrari have something similar in mind for the nose of their car? The nose cone could be modestly sculpted and opened-up so that it resembles a tube frame structure (much like what McLaren have done with their roll bar/airbox inlet), thereby ventilating high air pressure build-up immediately behind the front wing and under the nose.

Any thoughts?

[teecof1fan]

I agree about the purpose of the front wing 'hole' FGD, and welcome! This doesn't answer your question about the nose cone, but I wanted to say that what McLaren has done with their airbox reminds me of the Ferrari F2001's little airbox winglets.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/199-1.jpg

Personally, I think McLaren uses an interpretation of these little winglets only they incorporated them into the engine cover of the MP4-23 instead of having them hang out from the engine cover. Like I said, this doesn't answer your question about the nose cone (hopefully someone else can do that! ) but it was just a thought that came to mind about the airbox...

[Keir]

The only immediate issue I can see with that design is the packaging of the front suspension.

What's front suspension packaging got to do with nose?

http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/DeriveenVTS.jpg

I've only edited nose, not the chassis where suspension is.

My mistake, I glanced at the photo and mistook the camera mount for a suspension component.

Apologies.

[TheMinister]

This looks like a rather neat idea- I wouldn't be surprised if we see it adopted this year by some teams.

Does anybody happen to know more about the restrictions governing where your nose can extend to? This sort of thing would be restricted by how steep the angle of the slot inside the wing, seeing as the steeper it is the more drag it produces. The steepness would be held back by things that go inside the nose (suspension, tubes, feet etc).
Maybe if the air was brought up further back it could help delaminate the flow over the drivers head?

And would it not be more sensible to also model the ground in any CFD simulations? Surely it is meaningless without that boundary there- wouldn't half the benefit of this nose channel thing be that it moves air out from under the car, lowering pressure as a whole there?

[Gecko]

Manchild, unlike your previous idea which clearly has potential, your new one will likely not give any benefit. What you are forgetting that the region of low pressure is trapped between two bodywork components, so the suction effect is negated by the additional force acting on the lower part of the structure.

[manchild]

Manchild, unlike your previous idea which clearly has potential, your new one will likely not give any benefit. What you are forgetting that the region of low pressure is trapped between two bodywork components, so the suction effect is negated by the additional force acting on the lower part of the structure.

Small wing shaped part on top would generate downforce since between it and the rest of the nose Venturi shape would cause low pressure zone. Existence of that small wing on top just above the zone of low pressure generates downforce and prevents low pressure from lifting nose upwards. When I was thinking about this idea I had in mind reduction of upforce generated by conventionally curved nose. Another benefit would be lowered COG and perhaps more downforce generated in corners relative to conventional noses.