Pelican Noses

[amouzouris]

I think that this topic is really interesting, and deserves its own thread.

I've made a small analysis on this topic in my blog:

http://technicalf1explained.blogspot.co ... noses.html





Also, can anyone remember a team using a pelican nose prior to Renault in 2009?

[RB7ate9]

Offhand, the only sea-life nose I can recall was the BMW walrus of the FW26.

http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/881/williams-fw26

[wesley123]

I dont think the cfd showed is in no way representitive of what is done here. First of all, it is a 2D show, which tries to apply to a 3D shape. Therefore I dont think it applies to this, it applies to the force India bump and the one of the 2009 Renault. But what is done here is vastly different.

What is done here is something similar to what the 90s Bennetons ran, which had a rounded underside of the nosecone/tub. I have read somewhere about it's advantages, but I dont remember what they were. But I believe the same applies to these pelican noses.

[amouzouris]

I dont think the cfd showed is in no way representitive of what is done here. First of all, it is a 2D show, which tries to apply to a 3D shape. Therefore I dont think it applies to this, it applies to the force India bump and the one of the 2009 Renault. But what is done here is vastly different.

What is done here is something similar to what the 90s Bennetons ran, which had a rounded underside of the nosecone/tub. I have read somewhere about it's advantages, but I dont remember what they were. But I believe the same applies to these pelican noses.

i know that the 2d cfd is not accurate, as i have already stated, but i think that your comment ''in no way representative'' is too harsh as if you cut the car in the middle, it would be very similar (in shape) to that... the effect they are trying to achieve is the same...and i think that the reason it is shallower at the sides is so that the CoP stays balanced as the bulge is obstructing air that would otherwise have a clear path towards the back of the car and that is the reason they are running with the high noses as i am sure you know... air can still flow more easily to the back next to the front wing pylons while in the middle they get the 'Pelican Nose effect'... The reason i have not included this in my post is because i am not entirely sure about it...

[hollus]

First of all, good luck with your blog Amouzouris!

I see you are using Wtunnel-Pro for iphone and ipad?
The CFD is not representative because the simulation tool is a toy. More on that later, but funny enough, I looked at the same issue with exactly the same tool (toy) a few days ago.

If you want to extract anything from that tool, you'll have to keep things very, very simple. More like this:

Symmetrical nose, no downforce (there is some lift as I didn't get the shape exactly symmetrical).


Add the bulge, some downforce. The pressure distribution is clear.

The way I see it, that bulge is like a wing profile but without the rear part pointy end. It will create a bit of downforce by itself. Being between the nose pylons, it will also have the effect of a Venturi channel. What it won't have is the upwash of a wing, as the bodywork behind it prevents this from happening to a large extent.
So there are two possible advantages. One is downforce free of upwash induced drag. The other one, as you mentioned, is conditioning the flow behind.
The downside of course is some obstruction of air to the back of the car.

.
.
.

Now as to why you should be very, very, VERY cautious using this Wtunnel-pro tool:
1) It is 2D, obviously. That still should allow it to be good enough for some concept tests like this.
2) From the web page of the tool:
What are the units of the simulation ?
There are currently no actual units in the simulation. It was at first designed to be a visual app, not an engineering tool. However, we agree it could be interesting to give some units and values (speed, viscosity, pressure, Reynolds number). We are working on it and might include some units in a future update.
This means that we don't know if the density, viscosity, etc. is equivalent to those of air, water or molten lava.
3) The velocity field is solved in a 120×160 grid on iPad and on a 92×138 grid on iPod/iPhones.
This means that models have to be insanely simple.
4)...we developed a highly optimized simulation engine...
I am not sure how to interpret that, but my first instinct is that they simplified the math. That's never a good idea and the tool does display some really bizarre behavior. Particles stick to the walls and flow separation is moody, but the worse is that the conservation of mass is somehow broken. Simulations like this show it clearly:

The straight lines are velocity field, the dots simulated particles. As one can see, they go into the bottle and keep entering and entering for ever and making a whirlwind), yet nothing comes out. Whatever simplification they did, it was a step too far.

So be very, very, very careful before concluding anything from this tool!

[amouzouris]

Thank you for the good luck!
You have me absolutely agreeing with you from the beginning to the end...
i did try to keep it as simple as i could!

What you have drawn though is more like a finger than an f1 car nose.. Although i agree that the nose does produce some downforce itself because of the shape of F1 noses (no upwash) it is probably a very very little amount...

I didnt use the app to get any numbers out of it, just to show the relative preassure changes above and below the front wing's neutral section

IIRC i have also heard Scarbs at some point talking about the pelican nose and he also agrees that the nose is mostly used to produce downforce from the neutral section of the front wing (Scarbs i'm sorry if i dont remember correctly)


P.S. another great thread would be one about the Wind Tunnel App!!

[hollus]

There was one. I just revived it
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10710

Shall we keep the pelican noses here and discuss the app there?

[amouzouris]

ofc we should!

[Dragonfly]

I know the cars are 20 years apart but I see some resemblance

[wesley123]

I dont think the cfd showed is in no way representitive of what is done here. First of all, it is a 2D show, which tries to apply to a 3D shape. Therefore I dont think it applies to this, it applies to the force India bump and the one of the 2009 Renault. But what is done here is vastly different.

What is done here is something similar to what the 90s Bennetons ran, which had a rounded underside of the nosecone/tub. I have read somewhere about it's advantages, but I dont remember what they were. But I believe the same applies to these pelican noses.

i know that the 2d cfd is not accurate, as i have already stated, but i think that your comment ''in no way representative'' is too harsh as if you cut the car in the middle, it would be very similar (in shape) to that... the effect they are trying to achieve is the same...and i think that the reason it is shallower at the sides is so that the CoP stays balanced as the bulge is obstructing air that would otherwise have a clear path towards the back of the car and that is the reason they are running with the high noses as i am sure you know... air can still flow more easily to the back next to the front wing pylons while in the middle they get the 'Pelican Nose effect'... The reason i have not included this in my post is because i am not entirely sure about it...

I think they are trying to achieve the same as with the regular chin, but I believe it's effect is more efficient i.e. less draggy compared to what FI did.

I believe the advantage of this one is that it draws air through between the pillars and by that achieve lower pressure, instead of the sudden kink creating the low pressure.

Like Dragonfly posted above me, I believe they are doing the same with the noses now

[amouzouris]

was it a bump like the ones we see today on the Benetton? or was it a straight line to the floor after the front of the bulge we can see?

[Dragonfly]

As far as I remember Benetton's were not like a bump but gradually sloped down. The resemblance I see is in the shape of the of the front side - smooth curve. But the Benetton on the picture is a pre 94 car with different underbody aero. IIRC the exhaust pipes exited right in the diffuser. The high nose as far as memory goes was an innovation under Tom Walkinshaw.

[Raptor22]

As far as I remember Benetton's were not like a bump but gradually sloped down. The resemblance I see is in the shape of the of the front side - smooth curve. But the Benetton on the picture is a pre 94 car with different underbody aero. IIRC the exhaust pipes exited right in the diffuser. The high nose as far as memory goes was an innovation under Tom Walkinshaw.

The High nose was an innovation on the 1991 Tyrell 019.
The Leyton House CG901 actually predates it in that it used an undertray splitter under the cockpit . The Tyrell 019 rased the nose to get clean air to the undertray splitter and develop more downforce.
The Benetton B191 also had a raised nose and undertray splitter, but it was really the B193 through to B198 that had the "pelican Nose"

[bar555]

Bar team in early 2000's raced with a huge bulge under the nose cone , but later rejected the project . It helped to increase front end downforce . However old Benetton cars ( 1991 to 1995 ) had a flattened cone shaped nose rather than Pelikan, as they lacked any distinctive bulge under the nose .
Additionally i read a few posts above about noses inspired from nature ( Walrus Williams for example ) and i add the dolphin/crocodile thin nose of Minardi in 2000 and later seen on Mc Laren cars and the pointed shark nose on Mc Laren in 1995 .

[PlatinumZealot]

The Pelican nose is to help drive the front wing. The low pressure under the bulge cause the central front wing wake to push in towards it, thereby giving a cleaner flow to the front splitter.