For 2012: Nose Regulations

[Tozza Mazza]

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.

Haha, true, I reckon it could be built to pass the crash test though.


I thought the purpose of the original V nose was to raise this area of the chassis (the bottom) as high as possible. In 2009 and 2010 there were no limits on how high this area could be. The V nose stretched the minimum dimensions to make the height as high as possible, maximum the mass flow rate of air to the splitter area.

This concept uses the V nose to do this again, although in a completely different way.

Whilst the ridges will create drag, the reduced frontal area of this will offset this, no?

[bhall]

The v-nose was introduced to improve the efficiency of air flow between the wheels without falling afoul of the minimum dimensional requirements for the foot well of the chassis. Strictly speaking, neither nose height nor the ridges on top of the chassis are factors.

(Brief aside: I bet Scarbs wishes he could take a mulligan with regard to the last paragraph on that page I linked.)

[Tozza Mazza]

The v-nose was introduced to improve the efficiency of air flow between the wheels without falling afoul of the minimum dimensional requirements for the foot well of the chassis. Strictly speaking, neither nose height nor the ridges on top of the chassis are factors.

(Brief aside: I bet Scarbs wishes he could take a mulligan with regard to the last paragraph on that page I linked.)

Indeed!

However...I think those diagrams MAY be wrong.

I think Red Bull exploited something different. The rules demand radii 'around the corners'. What he did was add the multiple times around corners. This still meets the max height and width set by the regulations, but the cross-sectional area is reduced. This gives 'V' ridges. It also allows the diagonal transition at the bottom.

This theory is backed up by a recent scarbs article, showing the minimum cross section allowed on a current 2012 car, as given in a technical directive.

[bhall]

You have to remember that the dimensional rules have changed considerably since 2009 when the RB5 was introduced with a v-nose. As the rules have tightened and been stripped of loopholes, v-noses have become less extreme.

Put another way: what mattered then doesn't necessarily matter anymore.

(Don't you just love "peer review"?)

[hardingfv32]

You have to remember that the dimensional rules have changed considerably since 2009 when the RB5 was introduced with a v-nose. As the rules have tightened and been stripped of loopholes, v-noses have become less extreme.

But the current rules do not seem to preclude this treatment being applied to bottom of the nose. that is the interesting part of his idea.

The question is: If a high nose (underside) is good, then why wouldn't a higher nose be better?

Brian

[bhall]

The ridges would negate the expressed purpose of the v-nose concept if they're placed under the nose. The height of a chassis is effectively no higher than its lowest point with regard to air flow between the wheels.

EDIT: There's a reason why McLaren never used the following nose profile again.


And now that I think about it, the design proposed here sounds very similar to Renault's solution for 2009 and 2010, one that was abandoned because it didn't work.

[Tozza Mazza]

The ridges would negate the expressed purpose of the v-nose concept if they're placed under the nose. The effective height of a chassis is no higher than its lowest point with regard to air flow between the wheels.

And now that I think about it, the design proposed here sounds very similar to Renault's solution for 2009 and 2010, one that was abandoned because it didn't work.

OK, but at least the effective height of the chassis is the same as a conventional 2012 car. This is shown in this image here.



How are they negating the purpose? I thought the purpose of them is to raise the chassis, which they do, albeit only in the centre of the chassis.

I thought the 2009 Renault solution was based on interaction with the front wing central section to reduce the lift it creates. It did feature side skirts though, but I don't know the exact purpose of these.

[bhall]

Just so I can make sure we're on the same page, can you somehow make the relevant area a bit clearer? I tried to do it myself, but I can't get convincing results one way or the other.

[Tozza Mazza]

OK,

for some perspective I have included the rest of this area of the car.

I haven't got round to suspension yet, but it should mount in the same place as a conventional car, and the whole design is in a very simple form.






Apologies, I know it's difficult to pick out on the images, hopefully this will do!


You can (hopefully) see the v ridges. They are there simply to raise the height of the chassis in between the V, giving a higher mass flow rate under the chassis. The 'V' should help the sidepod/undercut area of the car, in theory, and I'm led to believe this can help the whole car work better as this area extracts airflow, and influences the whole car.

[bhall]

Yeah, I was afraid of that. When your answers didn't correlate with my questions - Ferrari fan? - I suspected that my mental image was incorrect. I pictured a strictly inverted v-nose. What you've done is more akin to a collapsed v-nose or a twin-keel.

That said, it doesn't really change my thoughts on the solution's potency. For the slight gain in air mass allowed by the nose's increased height, you'd lose the amount of air that would otherwise flow where you've placed the ridges; the system would likely build high pressure; and it would forsake the traditional benefits of a v-nose.

I still like the thought, though. And I could very well be wrong.

[MIKEY_!]

Do we really need to raise the bulkhead if the nose tip can be a max height? These noses all finish at the same height anyway, where they meet the sidepods.

The green nose is a normal V-nose, compliant with the 2011 regs. The step is smoother (with less drag), allowing the table top to be flatter and thus the nose tip higher. There is as much air under the tip as with the inverted V design. The green nose could have a curved underside like the red-bull couldn't it?

[Tozza Mazza]

Do we really need to raise the bulkhead if the nose tip can be a max height? These noses all finish at the same height anyway, where they meet the sidepods.

The green nose is a normal V-nose, compliant with the 2011 regs. The step is smoother (with less drag), allowing the table top to be flatter and thus the nose tip higher. There is as much air under the tip as with the inverted V design. The green nose could have a curved underside like the red-bull couldn't it?

The green nose is too long. The blue nose is as long as is allowed by the rules, although in theory you could move this back, by shortening fuel tank etc...

The green nose WILL NOT have as much air underneath as the red nose. you can very clearly see this in the image you have drawn. Remember air moves through the V as well. Whilst they both have the same height on top, my design has a higher bottom, meaning that there is a higher mass flow rate under the chassis, which is supposed to be of benefit. The nose ramp doesn't make too much difference, after looking at some CFD. Having it 'smoother' will make little difference, just look at Sauber, Ferrari, Red Bull and most other teams.

[Tozza Mazza]

For the slight gain in air mass allowed by the nose's increased height, you'd lose the amount of air that would otherwise flow where you've placed the ridges; the system would likely build high pressure; and it would forsake the traditional benefits of a v-nose.

Where the V ridges are on my design, are where the bottom corners would be on a conventional 2012 car, so it's not taking up any additional space compared to a conventional 2012 car.

I think it'd be good to get some tests done.

[MIKEY_!]

Yes, that would be best.

[Tozza Mazza]

2014 nose first glimpse.




Very reminiscent of BGP001.

Missing front wing, but you can see it will have to be curvy and low.

This is due to the restriction of height at the bulkhead to 525mm, 10cm lower than is permissible in 2012.

I like this look a lot!

EDIT: apologies, but floor is too far forward. This ruins the perspective of the splitter. sorry.