Nose cone idea

[shawness]

You can keep arguing that you're right and reality is wrong, but frankly, if you can't be bothered to look up some basic high school physics, I can't be bothered continuing to point it out*.

This is the reason that more F1 people don't participate in forums like this - it's not that it's annoying explaining why some of the harebrained ideas are wrong, it's just annoying when people don't believe you. You can argue over whether Hamilton is a better driver than Raikkonen, but you can't argue the laws of physics.

* I reserve the right to keep pointing it out.

[Chubbs]

Smaller tube regardless on shape with walls of same thickness as larger tube can withstand greater forces than larger tube. Have you ever seen a waterworks 1/2 inch pipe that has thicker walls than 2/3 pipe?

haha classic

[manchild]

You can keep arguing that you're right and reality is wrong, but frankly, if you can't be bothered to look up some basic high school physics, I can't be bothered continuing to point it out*.

This is the reason that more F1 people don't participate in forums like this - it's not that it's annoying explaining why some of the harebrained ideas are wrong, it's just annoying when people don't believe you. You can argue over whether Hamilton is a better driver than Raikkonen, but you can't argue the laws of physics.

* I reserve the right to keep pointing it out.

Exactly! More people F1 skip these forums since you talk like you've never made anything with your hands or read a science book in Chinese.

Please, take a sheet of cardboard and make two boxes. One big and one smaller. Glue them with same glue, let it dry for same time and than drop them from same height and tell check which one will be more demolished.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. It is not high school physics, it is 8th grade physics and you're arguing them. Two minutes spent in a garage or a workshop would convince you that you're making some scientific suspicion out of common sense!

Compare the thickness of shoe box cardboard and match box cardboard for god's sake! Why do you think match box cardboard is few times thinner? Because thats enough to fulfill structural demands, there is no need to make it from thicker cardboard. Drop them from same height and check which one will be damaged more.

Want scientific proof?

http://pressure.steel.sandvik.com/framepage.asp

Dimension:

Diameter X Wall thickness (mm)_____ maximum internal pressure (bar)

6 X 1_____432
8 X 1_____311
10 X 1____242
12 X 1____199
14 X 1____168
...
70 X 5____168
...
168 X 5____67
...


Is that convincing enough?

I'm really not going to waste my time anymore explaining things most of the 10 y.o. kids are aware of.

[teecof1fan]

Since we've all completely lost the plot

I'll remind us that basically manchild came up with two great ideas, the first of which was posted in AUGUST OF 07. We then learned THIS MONTH (nearly 6 months later) that Ferrari would be (supposedly) running a new nose which is completely in line with manchild's August 07 idea.** Then manchild came up with another interesting idea. The illustration is on the last post of this page viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4589&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=140 (note that the first concept is also on this page, toward the middle, so don't be confused). My point is that someone was thinking creatively and laterally about F1, which we should applaud. Instead, we all decided to nitpick about who is right, who is wrong, what is right, what is wrong. To sum it up, none of us (myself included) have posted anything nearly as productive or interesting as manchild. His ideas were honest and original, and this being an F1 forum, he was probably looking for insight, not an argument. Yeah I know I can't speak for manchild, but this is sensibility talking, nothing else. I myself can't come up with anything nearly as creative as what manchild has, and so far nobody else has either; I've just heard nitpicking. So I say let's give him some credit for his ideas! As Ciro would say: I'm not yelling! Just saying...

Cheers, hope you all had a good weekend!

**I don't mean to say that Ferrari saw manchild's photoshop and then decided to try it out. I just mean that manchild had the insight and creativeness to suggest this idea well before any info was leaked to the public; the fact that Ferrari are working on it just solidifies my point

[rjsa]

You can keep arguing that you're right and reality is wrong, but frankly, if you can't be bothered to look up some basic high school physics, I can't be bothered continuing to point it out*.

This is the reason that more F1 people don't participate in forums like this - it's not that it's annoying explaining why some of the harebrained ideas are wrong, it's just annoying when people don't believe you. You can argue over whether Hamilton is a better driver than Raikkonen, but you can't argue the laws of physics.

* I reserve the right to keep pointing it out.

Exactly! More people F1 skip these forums since you talk like you've never made anything with your hands or read a science book in Chinese.

Please, take a sheet of cardboard and make two boxes. One big and one smaller. Glue them with same glue, let it dry for same time and than drop them from same height and tell check which one will be more demolished.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. It is not high school physics, it is 8th grade physics and you're arguing them. Two minutes spent in a garage or a workshop would convince you that you're making some scientific suspicion out of common sense!

Compare the thickness of shoe box cardboard and match box cardboard for god's sake! Why do you think match box cardboard is few times thinner? Because thats enough to fulfill structural demands, there is no need to make it from thicker cardboard. Drop them from same height and check which one will be damaged more.

Want scientific proof?

http://pressure.steel.sandvik.com/framepage.asp

Dimension:

Diameter X Wall thickness (mm)_____ maximum internal pressure (bar)

6 X 1_____432
8 X 1_____311
10 X 1____242
12 X 1____199
14 X 1____168
...
70 X 5____168
...
168 X 5____67
...


Is that convincing enough?

I'm really not going to waste my time anymore explaining things most of the 10 y.o. kids are aware of.

There is a huge diference between a pressure vessel and a chassis tube. In a pressure vessel, the force derives from surface area, in the chassis not. You can't compare both structures.

[teecof1fan]

Ok, so where's your bright idea for a new nose cone then rsja? At least manchild can think laterally. You're just blasting his creative thinking, you haven't contributed anything to the topic.

[manchild]

There is a huge diference between a pressure vessel and a chassis tube. In a pressure vessel, the force derives from surface area, in the chassis not. You can't compare both structures.

So, you're saying that if we'd crash test these pipes, the ones with lower pressure tolerance would be less damaged under impact?

Principle is absolutely identical. Mechanical pressure, pressure from impact in foreign object, pressure under shear stress... whatever, all of them are in same relation to diameter vs. wall thickness as for gas or fluid pressure.

teecof1fan, Thanks but there's no need to defend me. Judging by your avatar someone might think that I've registered with another nick just to give myself support when I lack one.

[teecof1fan]

Ah, you're misunderstanding, manchild I just think the other two are nitpicking which really bugs me. It's less about defending you as it is challenging the others I'll say it a third time: none of this matters because if either of these designs were ever used, the teams would figure out the construction and they could make them pass the crash tests (and handle the aero loads during a race). In other words, if you all are going to keep arguing you might as well just do it through private messages, because none of this has to do with anything any more

[rjsa]

His first idea was good. And it was me to raise this thread back when rumors of Ferrari using it appeared. But now it's over the top and bending physics, that's not good.

[manchild]

Well, I suggested few tips to shawness how to check that nose with smaller diameter cross section would require thinner CF walls so I guess you could try it out yourself.

[checkered]

What an absolutely outlandish

exchance we're having here. I can recognise from the way that Shawness is expressing himself that he's familiar with considering (structural) problems by dividing them in their constituent parts, while Manchild is clearly exercising something based on a synthesis of various undifferentiated observations. Both approaches are applicable, but apparently not very fruitful in making useful determinations in a conversation. I'm not inclined to persist in any running battle, I'm just offering a couple of one off notions to see what happens.

Shawness' comments on material thickness were prompted by the presentation of a cross section of a particular uniform material structure. He is absolutely, 100% right in stating that in withstanding an equally divided perpendicular force to the cross section, only the area of the material A(mat) - not the area of the shape A(sha) - is the deciding factor. A larger A(mat) will withstand a greater force, a smaller A(mat) withstands a lesser force. In this sense, it is absolutely untrue that diminishing the cross sectional A(sha) would allow for diminishing the cross sectional A(mat) in countering an equal perpendicular force. This, in a sense, can be too simple to understand because it is a constituent part of the problem.

The logic in stating that for the described "alternative" A(sha) the CoG will rise relative to the "original" A(sha) follows from the suggested "alternative" shape necessitating a longer defining border to the A(mat) (that is a constant, determined in relation to the perpendicular force it is to withstand, all other things being equal) which places a greater portion of the A(mat), divided uniformly along the A(sha) defining curve, higher. This line of thinking might seem conterintuitive in the "real World", but it is the basis of making actual mathematical and physical determinations of the whole, allowing for well founded design decisions.

Speaking of the "real World", the shapes (or structures, rather) themselves come into play when considering multidirectional, 3D forces etc. The whole idea of CF-Honeycomb composites is to place the minimum A(mat) in a suitable A(sha) to counter any and all forces. The physical properties of some materials also change on the atomic level by certain types of deformation. That doesn't take away from the fact that ultimately a certain A(mat) will withstand only a certain unidirectional force, though. This is in the heart of structural optimisation. Making actual determinations on how the CoG might be affected in Manchild's more recent suggestion is a challenging proposition, but Shawness' basic assumption is a structurally plausible starting point. Aerodynamically, I wonder what (if anything) an "embedded winglet" such as that would do that a bridge wing couldn't?

The value of experience based innovation is clear in Manchild's original suggestion. Answers only follow from questions and this time he came up with one that has apparently also inspired actual F1 aerodynamicists - I wouldn't be surprised if the original starting point had beed roughly the same, inventing additional shapes that exert downforce by themselves. From that it is not such a leap of imagination, after some consideration, to make comparisons between different permutations of interactions with adjacent, pre-existing shapes and their variations.

In the context of this messageboard it is largely academic, for me at least, whether the ultimate solution of Ferrari (if Piola's illustration is accurate) is functionally the same as Manchild's original idea. For a reason or another, some inventions just seem to be "in the air" at particular times.

The "Piola version" seems to differ from the "Manchild original" in one central way that, as far as I've noted, hasn't been much discussed. Whereas Manchild's duct either retains its dimensions or is narrower in the middle, Piola's illustration rather intriguingly suggest that the volume of the duct increases towards the middle and the apertures are the narrowest parts. This, to me at least, suggests an attempt at achieving nonlinear pressure differences in velocity variable situations (in addition to the "extended chord" theory).

In effect, I imagine the front wing experiencing "overflow" especially in very sudden decelerations (the reduction in duct pressure lagging behind the reduction in wing pressure), temporarily reducing front DF and alleviating a small part of the force transfer to the front axle. This would allow the driver to get on the brakes a bit harder. Similarly, I can imagine that in starting to accelerate, due to the shaping of the duct the internal pressure doesn't initially rise as fast as the pressure over the wing profile. This could temporarily increase the attainable DF, alleviating the force transfer to the rear axle and allowing the driver to get on the accelerator a bit sooner and with less understeer when exiting a corner.

No need to mention that this was merely an afterthought. But I certainly would like to see this nonlinear aspect even summarily discussed.

[Conceptual]

Anyways,

Manchild, I was looking at your picture and thinking about what you are trying to do, and a VERY out-of-the-box idea came to me... I am working on the CAD drawing now, and when it is done, I'll post it here for one of the local CFD guys to run through.

Well, the jist of it is that while the slot through the nose is cool, I think you may have opened the door for something else.

Follow me on this, its hard to explain in type:

First: take a normal nose, and cut it horizontal to the ref plane about 60% of the length, then curve towards the top adding a nice downforce generating surface. Then slice the removed part longways....Then flip those two pieces outward 180 degrees and attach to the side of the already cut nose.

Second: Take BMW's new wings (the ones near the antennas), spin them around to sweep forward, and mount them right on the very front of the nose with the bent up tips protruding forward of the nosecone. The flat part of this wing would be made of the now flat nose, and extend side to side on the attached pieces.

Third: Now attach a bridge wing from endplate to endplate with midpoint connections to the swept forward nosewing flip-ups.

Fourth: Now include your pressure relief slot in the nose right AFTER the cutout made above and cut slots through into the TOP of your slot, because the diffusor effect as the lowered/flattened nose passes over/through (Gotta see my dwg to understand this) will actually EXTRACT the air up from below and just draw it away like a chimney.

I know that it is difficult to grasp what I am talking about, but I am working on the CAD file as we speak. Pretty busy this week, but I may have it done by Saturday!

PS: CFD guys, please PM me with an email and what format you need it exported to if you are interested in doing some analysis.

Thanks!

Chris

[slimjim8201]

Yay or nay?

[Gecko]

Great job slimjim! Although to be fair towards manchild's idea, I imagine you would have to make the gap between the wing and the rest of the nosecone slightly larger just so that the boundary layers and turbulence don't choke the flow between the two components.

[manchild]

Regarding structural stuff... can someone please upload a pic of current nose cone longitudinal cutaway to show some people that noses are thinner at the tip when they are narrower and thicker closer to chassis?

...Gotta see my dwg to understand this.

Indeed A sketch would be fine too.

I imagine you would have to make the gap between the wing and the rest of the nosecone slightly larger just so that the boundary layers and turbulence don't choke the flow between the two components.

Yep, choking came to my mind too as soon as I've seen it. Got to make bigger gap.

Otherwise it looks ok, apart from that it perhaps could be also tested with another version where the wing would be more backwards (more horizontal and also larger).