Mercedes GP MGP W01

[aral]

I think the philosophy today is making the tub and nose as high as possible and clearing the airspace under it as much as possible. That gives you the best chance to pull as much air as possible under the car to feed to the diffusors. Of course I'm not talking about management parts as the plow or splitter that are needed, just the nose and tub.

Actually you want to use high nose so the underside and splitter area divert airflow out the sides of the car to *minimize* the airflow under the car and make the diffuser create a lower pressure area under the floor.

Yes, that makes more sense in terms of description. But the goal is still high air flow flow in the nose section even if you want to divert it away later. I wonder how that drooping nose was supposed to achieve that. The straighter high noses seem to be a simple solution for the task.[/quote]

There are two schools of thought on the nose profile. The high nose channels air below the car where it is managed by the diffuser and turning vanes. The droopy nose is designed to deflect air upwards and over the car, and to prevent air from going under the car. this is the Mercedes system. In other words, the high nose removes air from under the car and helps suck it to the track, whereas the low nose is putting emphasis on pushing the car down onto the track. It looks as if suck is better than push, at this time, but there are merits in both systems, and it is possible that when Mercedes understand their system fully, they may be able to catch up.

I imagine that testing on the nose was related only to the nose area, thus they may have found a little more front downforce with that layout and since that's what they were looking for they settled on that design.

You have to now what you want when it comes to design and testing so if you're not looking for improved airflow at the splitter/under nose area you won't find it, and thus down the wrong path we go .. it wouldn't surprise me to see them revert towards a design like last year's Brawn cow catcher splitter. It probably wasn't drag efficient but it did seem to work well with this nose design.[/quote]

[PlatinumZealot]

On the nose; I guess a team can try to design their front crash structure as a separate part form the the nose cone. I think that is how they do it for some of the LeMans cars.

The nose is the front crash structure. The only part they can touch is the wing and the wing struts.

Yeah I know. I should have been clearer. I meant for next year it would be interesting if a team tried to do it as two separate parts.

[PlatinumZealot]

Actually you want to use high nose so the underside and splitter area divert airflow out the sides of the car to *minimize* the airflow under the car and make the diffuser create a lower pressure area under the floor.

There are two schools of thought on the nose profile. The high nose channels air below the car where it is managed by the diffuser and turning vanes. The droopy nose is designed to deflect air upwards and over the car, and to prevent air from going under the car. this is the Mercedes system. In other words, the high nose removes air from under the car and helps suck it to the track, whereas the low nose is putting emphasis on pushing the car down onto the track. It looks as if suck is better than push, at this time, but there are merits in both systems, and it is possible that when Mercedes understand their system fully, they may be able to catch up.

I imagine that testing on the nose was related only to the nose area, thus they may have found a little more front downforce with that layout and since that's what they were looking for they settled on that design.

You have to now what you want when it comes to design and testing so if you're not looking for improved airflow at the splitter/under nose area you won't find it, and thus down the wrong path we go .. it wouldn't surprise me to see them revert towards a design like last year's Brawn cow catcher splitter. It probably wasn't drag efficient but it did seem to work well with this nose design.

Yes, that seems to be the drooping nose philosophy. It reminds me of a bucket blade turbine wheel Vs a reaction blade turbine wheel. Similar analogy. The bucket blade works on the raw momentum change of the working fluid to generate force, whereas the more subtler reaction blades rely on pressure changes (with an element of momentum change too). The Crooked nose brawn is like the Bucket blade, and the straight nose Sauber is like the reaction blade.

Both work, but the strait nose seems to have desirable effects under the car. We see teams like Mclaren and Ferrari change to the straight nose.

[Blackout]

A drooping nose also generates more downforce with a lower CG...

I think the Mercedes has too much downforce and drag on the front of the car when they rather need more downforce (and ballast) on the rear... Renault faced the inverse problem in 2007 (when they switched to the Bridgestone), thats why the R28 had a much deeper nose with two almost horizontal wing fasteners to produce more downforce...

[czt]

A drooping nose also generates more downforce with a lower CG...

What?! Can you explain this please?

[aral]

A drooping nose also generates more downforce with a lower CG...

What?! Can you explain this please?

I presume that Blackout will explain himself, but he is right. With a drooping nose, you get high pressure on the top, and low pressure on the bottom, causing the nose to be pushed down. Also the c of g will of course be lower as the front is lower. But the weight is minimal, so benefit would also be minimalBasic maths!

I would also like to point out that part of what appears to be my post, was actually someone elses post, somehow inserted onto mine. The two paragraphs starting "I imagine...." Sorry to the correct poster!

[czt]

A drooping nose also generates more downforce with a lower CG...

What?! Can you explain this please?

I presume that Blackout will explain himself, but he is right. With a drooping nose, you get high pressure on the top, and low pressure on the bottom, causing the nose to be pushed down. Also the c of g will of course be lower as the front is lower. But the weight is minimal, so benefit would also be minimalBasic maths!

I would also like to point out that part of what appears to be my post, was actually someone elses post, somehow inserted onto mine. The two paragraphs starting "I imagine...." Sorry to the correct poster!

Ah, I see what you mean - I read it as generating more downforce due to the lower C of G!

I think that explaining the nose in such simple terms is not possible. There are so many factors to consider, not least its interaction with the front wing itself and the flow structures generated by the front wing elements.

[PlatinumZealot]

Yes. That is what must be pointed out, the wedge shape of nose itself makes more DF when in direct comparison than a table top surface but who knows what type of wake it has. Williams, Ferrari and Mclaren (and redbull slightly) switched from steep angle noses to high top noses so they must have seen something differently.

The other thing I don't like about the nose is the ugly upward bend underneath it. I would like it if that part were straight. It was posted earlier that the upward bend helps to draw air from under the front wing, but it's hard to believe when you have a neutral wing profile in the middle of the wing which doens't make that much DF.

[aral]

A drooping nose also generates more downforce with a lower CG...

What?! Can you explain this please?

I presume that Blackout will explain himself, but he is right. With a drooping nose, you get high pressure on the top, and low pressure on the bottom, causing the nose to be pushed down. Also the c of g will of course be lower as the front is lower. But the weight is minimal, so benefit would also be minimalBasic maths!

I would also like to point out that part of what appears to be my post, was actually someone elses post, somehow inserted onto mine. The two paragraphs starting "I imagine...." Sorry to the correct poster!

Granted that there are a lot more variables, but you have to start somewhere. Start with a drooping nose, and then design the front wing, and underbody to take advantage of it. Different takes on different ideas! But which is "right"? Currently those diverting airflow under the car, seem to be winning, but things change!

[marcush.]

How do you comeup with a drooping nose design?

This makes me think that Bigois`team started off with the Brawn design and the new car was morphed out of this .
In the end they had a completely new car ..but you can still see the 2009 Brawn in some areas.just why they chose to modify the drooping nose but not drop it for a straight nose design ...who knows they had their reasons surely.
As they dropped their complete snowplug concept in the splitter area as well.....

[bugref]

No Picture yet? I want to see what are the changes they will have to change or add this time...

[kalinka]

Maybe all the 2011 cars will came up with low nose, because of the banned diffuser ?
It's no need to divert air below the car if there's no diffuser, as i understand. It'll be interesting to see if a RedBull comes out with low nose. Hard to imagine, but it's possible. What you think, will it be there any reason next year to run high nose cars ?

[Mysticf1]

The redbull had a high nose before the DDD, so i don't see why there would be a major deviation away from that concept.

[Blackout]

Many cars have high noses because they don't need much downforce on the front tires... it's one of the other reasons. Tires grip is here determinant... with larger front Michelin they would have different noses and aero configurations...

[BreezyRacer]

Maybe all the 2011 cars will came up with low nose, because of the banned diffuser ?
It's no need to divert air below the car if there's no diffuser, as i understand. It'll be interesting to see if a RedBull comes out with low nose. Hard to imagine, but it's possible. What you think, will it be there any reason next year to run high nose cars ?

Just the opposite. It's not like diffusers are illegal, it's just that they cannot be double diffusers. Diffuser performance will mean more than ever, thus high noses will be everywhere to better control the airflow to the under tray area.