New 2013 F1 aerodynamic formula

[ringo]

Oh i did mention senna, lol. I was referring to the head bashing post in response to white blue. If we keep it in that context, i didn't mention him then.

About the drawing, you cannot leave the seating position the same. To seat the driver higher is back must either be at a steeper angle or the seat base has to be higher, which would unnecessarily increased COG.


What i did in that picture, is place the driver higher by increasing the angle of the seat, it's not as vertical as the old school F1 cars if you look at it.
It's still a good 45 degrees or so.
What i have done is increase the view point by about 6 inches to demonstrate with the light blue line that even this is not enough to allow the driver to see anything in front of the wheels. All he sees is the middle of the wing and no more.

You also cannot have a low nose with the driver in the fetal position, unless the car is extremely long. If you look at the picture you get an idea of where the pedals must be and hence the legs.

I am not trying to not appear wrong. There is no wrong or right in this discussion, it is an open discussion of a matter that isn't even being considered by the FIA.
All i am saying is that it's not necessary to change the car, especially when it doesn't help the problem.

[ringo]

A less misleading interpretation of a low nose design applied to a modern F1 car:

Less?

You must be joking. That is not physicall possible. Secondly it's not even a low nose that can accomodate KERS.
Those say nothing about seating position, leg position etc.

That cannot house KERS and neither does it improve driver vision of the corners of the car.

It looks nice, but it doesn't explain everything.
That's also a nice way to wedge the car under another's gearbox crash structure.Massa took a one kg spring to the face, This driver would be fed a 640kg car through the visor.
Imagine Webber's crash with this, or Hamilton's pitlane accident with kimi.
It's not safe.

this is probably the better solution:
visible front wing, 2008 style, and true low nose with bulky front end to house KERS (may need to be lower to the ground, maybe at splitter level).
Notice the flat top, not a wedge.

[WhiteBlue]

The wide wings of the current formula are not very sensible if you want to avoid accidents. If we get more front downforce from the tunnels I'm sure we can avoid the wide wings.

[Blackout]

Why don't we simply imagine a U shaped monocoque ? no need to low down the nose...
FIA can raise drivers position a bit, add bigger windscreens, and that's it.

(No need to precise this is a very approximative sketch)

[FW17]

There is noway that visiblty can be increased in the current F1 cars and the reason for this is not the height at which drivers sit but because of the high cockpit side impact protection.

This was a major differance between 1995 and 1996, drives helmets visors were always ligned up against top of cockpits but the low sides ment drivers could pop their head out and see where the wheels were during a turn in. The low nose does not make a differance.

This is a modern day low nose (not 1994 low but still)and the driver sees nothing of the front wing or nose cone.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZbJUkRziWA[/youtube]


Old days with out cockpit sides



Wheel tether are not going to prevent senna like accidents but was designed to prevent Henry Surtees. Senna like accidents can be protected against by extending the sidepods forward which gives an additional side protection to the cockpit.

[hollus]

Ringo, discussing with common sense in mind and not entrenching in exact definitions:
Drivers can see a cone of about 100 degrees (I made up this number) ahead of them, and more by just turning their eyes, without the need to turn their heads. This puts the current wing tips well withing their field of vision, or it would if it weren't because the wheels are in the way.
They also have 3D vision, and spatial awareness, so they do not need to see the wing tip. If they can see the outer edge of the wheel, and project that line forwards in their heads, and they can see a section of the leading edge of the front wing, and project that line sideways, they can infer where exactly the wing tip is. They can't see it, but they don't need to imagine where it would be, they can use direct visual references to pinpoint its exact position.
I also think that moving their eyes some centimeters upwards would improve the visibility of the front wings (not of its tips), but of course it is a disaster for aerodynamics and COG.

[WhiteBlue]

I also think that moving their eyes some centimeters upwards would improve the visibility of the front wings (not of its tips), but of course it is a disaster for aerodynamics and COG.

Impact on performance is irrelevant as the rule would be the same for all. Whatever the rules are performance increases steadily and has to be curbed from time to time. Why not use a mandatory better driver position to curb performance?

[hollus]

Exactly, that's why only the regulations can raise the driver's POV.

[ringo]

Ringo, discussing with common sense in mind and not entrenching in exact definitions:
Drivers can see a cone of about 100 degrees (I made up this number) ahead of them, and more by just turning their eyes, without the need to turn their heads. This puts the current wing tips well withing their field of vision, or it would if it weren't because the wheels are in the way.

Yes, this is what i was saying all along. This is why it doesn't make sense to raise the driver.

They also have 3D vision, and spatial awareness, so they do not need to see the wing tip. If they can see the outer edge of the wheel, and project that line forwards in their heads, and they can see a section of the leading edge of the front wing, and project that line sideways, they can infer where exactly the wing tip is. They can't see it, but they don't need to imagine where it would be, they can use direct visual references to pinpoint its exact position.

Yep, they can learn where the wing is without having to see it.

I also think that moving their eyes some centimeters upwards would improve the visibility of the front wings (not of its tips), but of course it is a disaster for aerodynamics and COG.

Exactly what I said, but it doesn't change much if the driver can see the part of the wing between the wheels a little better.
Maybe it's the way i type, but all these points i have mentioned and demonstrated with the photoshoped Toyota.
It can't get any clear than your post. =D>

[Just_a_fan]

One example that comes to mind is the copse corner collision between Hamilton and Vettel in lap one of the British GP. This racing accident pretty much destroyed Vettel's race.

Ummm, Vettel could learn where his rear end is too. His ability to take the high ground before having fully secured is quite spectacular c.f. Turkey.

No matter how good their vision of the front corner these guys will always drive as close as they can and there will always be contact.

[wesley123]

Raiseing the drivers position would be stupid to do, let me name 2 events which prove this;

Australia 2007; Someone almost chopped off Wurz head, was his head a few inches higher i can imagine that other car just slicing through his helmet or at least his hands.

Abu Dabhi 2010; If schumachers head was higher his head would have become stuck between Liuzzis car and his own, that is in the best way could probably be worse.

An higher driver position wouldnt be safer at all, and this low position even adds their ability to feel the car more.

The driver was never really able to see the wing tips at all, and this isnt even needed, drivers will drive closely and accidents where the wing was damaged would have happened too when the driver could see the wingtips.

With the new formula coming we might see the front wing again being degraded to just an part to balance the car out, which makes an damaged front wing less of a problem to no problem at all.

[ringo]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/01/14/n ... ctured-f1/

Newey explained the difficulties of preventing this kind of accident through car design:

There are ways being thought of. The fundamental problem is as long as we have an exposed rear wheel then when a nose hits a rear wheel the rotation is going to lift the car.

You could look at regulating very low front noses but that brings other things. At the moment the great thing about high noses is there’s little danger, if a car T-bones another one. If you T-bone a car with a low nose the car could end up on top of you.

So it’s like all these things. It’s almost like the original debate over safety belts: 99% of the time they’re good for you but occasionally there’s going to be an accident where you’d be better not to have a safety belt.

Improving vision to improve safety... or not?

[Formula None]

Have low noses acting as ramps been an issue in crashes in the past?

[WhiteBlue]

Newey naturally uses all points he can find to protect technologies that he understands best of all designers. That does not necessarily mean it covers all aspects of the issue of low noses. T-boning is relatively rare in F1 compared to oval racing and cars riding up on each other have been seen twice with high noses last year, in Monaco and Abu Dhabi. The comment seems not to reflect the actual accident problems in F1.

[ringo]

Most life threatening accidents are rare, it doesn't mean you should ignore protecting against it.

Any lower and this man is a dead man:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYQQlrg4OP4[/youtube]

The W01 has a slight downward taper to the nose. This may not have happened with the ferrari or Mclaren, but it was high enough none the less to protect the driver.
If a nose is too low chances are it wont crumple like it's designed to. It will just digg down or wedge something else up.

The monaco crash had nothing to do with the nose. It was one car riding up on the others rear wheel. In fact the low driver position , which you are against, is what stopped chandock's head from being kicked off.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9sHbkhAWpc[/youtube]