For 2012: Nose Regulations

[Tozza Mazza]

I think the ramp underneath is going to be detrimental to the flow under the nose creating a net reduction to the performance of the splitter, etc.

Brian

In what way? Won't they reduce spill over the sides, which is also detrimental to performance in this area?

[hardingfv32]

In what way? Won't they reduce spill over the sides, which is also detrimental to performance in this area?

I missed the lower V, disregard my statement. The flow would be fine.

It does seem odd that no team has taken this approach. I think we are missing some detail. Off to the rule book.

Brian

[Tozza Mazza]

In what way? Won't they reduce spill over the sides, which is also detrimental to performance in this area?

I missed the lower V, disregard my statement. The flow would be fine.

It does seem odd that no team has taken this approach. I think we are missing some detail. Off to the rule book.

Brian

Did you find anything? I couldn't.

The problem may lay in the fact that the V nose rules are governed by a technical directive, and are not released in the actual regulations.

[N12ck]

In what way? Won't they reduce spill over the sides, which is also detrimental to performance in this area?

I missed the lower V, disregard my statement. The flow would be fine.

It does seem odd that no team has taken this approach. I think we are missing some detail. Off to the rule book.

Brian

Did you find anything? I couldn't.

The problem may lay in the fact that the V nose rules are governed by a technical directive, and are not released in the actual regulations.

I cant see anything in the regs,

[hardingfv32]

Agree, the rules do not seem to preclude the idea.

I would surmise that any possible benefit does not outweigh the structural and packaging challenges. I us the McLaren nose design as evidence that there is limited benefit to the maximized nose height designs. I am assuming that McLaren's design is not detrimental to the their car's performance.

Many be this is just a sharp rule interpretation the has no benefit when used on an actual car. It would not be the first time that has happened on this forum.

Brian

[Tozza Mazza]

It would be nice to have it tested to see if it's flawed, or offers any benefits.

Teams want the bottom of the chassis of the car as high as possible, and this concept allows this.

I disagree that structurally it's flawed, as it is hardly differing in shape to current V nose designs, although the suspension may overload the ridges. However, the raised CofG and reduced area for critical suspension parts may 'ruin' this design.

[hardingfv32]

Teams want the bottom of the chassis of the car as high as possible, and this concept allows this.

Except for McLaren which kind of clouds the issue of ultra high noses at this point.

I am not sure I have a full appreciation of the high nose goals. Take the flow nearest to the nose floor (farthest from the ground), Where do you think it is going to end up, going around the side pod? It is not going under the floor is it?

Brian

[Tozza Mazza]

Very true, although they may just be following the design pattern they have had since 2009, as they feel more comfortable with how it works, and interacts with the rest of the chassis, rather than start that area from scratch again.

I agree, something doesn't add up, and I doubt it's as vital as some point out, but there must be something in it if 10/12 teams have followed this path.

[marcush.]

why have they raised the nose in the first place? sure it has to do with freeing up a lot of airvolume between the front wheels where you get divergence as the air gets crammed up and needs to flow between wheel and tub.
Quite intriguing they still have all the suspension members in between there leading to blocking of airvolume in a critical area..
I had thought someone came up with something really hot in this area for 2012 but I´m hugely disappointed to see only that half baked Ferrari thingy not offering any significant advances in that area.

[hardingfv32]

Maybe the latest nose designs do not route as much flow to this area as in the past. We are stuck with the strong performance of Mclaren, wondering if some of the aero rules have changed that we have gone by in recent years.

Brian

[MIKEY_!]

Can you draw your nose onto this?? I'm struggling to see how it is higher than other noses.

[Tozza Mazza]

Okay so for perspective, I have a conventional 2012 design, and my Inverted V design.

These images will show how much of a benefit it could offer, assuming that the more mass flow in this area, the better.

This first image shows dimensions, and how it meets the regulations, assuming that the maximum V allowed can be used at the bottom, instead of the top of the of the tub. It also shows that the tip is much higher, and that an ironing board flat top can be used on this style of nose. The red box above 550mm denotes the area where no bodywork is permitted.



The second image shows the two side by side. It really shows just how much more area can be gained by using this concept. Note that the suspension mount points (on the V ridges for the inverted V concept), remain in the same place although packaging of components may be flawed, causing a raised CofG over the conventional design.



For the third image, I coloured in the V ridges blue, so you can see a comparison along the majority of the width of the tubs.



The mass flow rate of the inverted V nose must surely be much higher than a conventional design. I have been led to believe that this is a benefit.

[bhall]

How does that needle pass a crash test?

[Tozza Mazza]

How does that needle pass a crash test?

The Sauber nose is definitely thinner. I am certain it can be made to pass!

EDIT :

[bhall]

Thinner at the tip. Yours is thin throughout. (Those statements seem fraught with bad innuendo.)

How about drag? I thought the whole purpose of traditional v-noses was to eliminate high pressure drag under the nose. This design would seem to collect it.