"Pelican" vs."Non-Pelican" F1's car nose brief CFD analysis
The “non-pelican” nose:
The “pelican” nose:
As in the previous step-less vs. stepped F1's car nose brief CFD analysis:
- They have been used the real length between lines A-A and B-B (925 mm) besides the minimum external dimension (vertical) at the section A-A (275 mm) and the minimum external dimension (vertical) at the section B-B (400mm).
- It has been set, too, an airflow's speed of 50m/s because that's the maximum allowed by FIA (2013 Formula One Sporting Regulations) during wind tunnel testing [Rule 22.10].
This is the velocity vectors chart, for the “non-pelican” nose:
Enlarged view of the above image:
This is the velocity vectors chart, for the “pelican” nose:
Enlarged view of the above image:
Velocity vectors comparative chart for both noses:
We can see, that the presence of the bulge under the nose increases airflow's speed.
Enlarged view of the above image:
In addition to velocity vectors, we are able to analyse velocity and static pressure contours, too.
If we look at the contours of velocity, we can see how airflow's speed increases for the “pelican” nose case.
Enlarged view of the above image:
Static Pressure contours comparative chart for both noses:
Enlarged view of the above image:
For the “pelican” case, there will have a bigger static pressure gradient, in other words, the “pelican” nose (such as they[both noses] were drawn) will create “more downforce” than the “non-pelican” one.
We should note that, because we have not taken into account the front wing elements (main profile, flaps, etc.), after the iterative process we obtain “positive” values of the coefficient “cl” (downforce coefficient).
More than the values obtained for the downforce coefficient, what is truly important here, is its change as the “non-pelican” or the “pelican” one, may be the case.
“Non-pelican” nose results:
“Pelican” nose results:
We can see that clpelican<clnon-pelican, in other words, the presence of such a bulge underneath of the nose, induces a “more negative (smaller)” downforce coefficient (0.23<0.30).
Regards, MarleneKberg.
