2014 season - Ugliest noses ever?

[henra]

So a high but very short nose with pillars protruding forward, cut-out to comply with the regs A drooping nose gives a completely different flow to the underside of the nose, tea-tray and suspension:

Hmmm, maybe I have the wrong picture i my head, but I don't think that would be allowed under the 2014 regs.

You need a front end of the crash structure whose center is at 185mm height above reference plane. and 50mm behind that you need an area of 9000mm^2.
How would you comply with these rules with th FW-26 approach?

[shelly]

One possible option would be using the pillars as part of the crash structure ( iirc the crash test is done with pillars and center part of the front wing). So theoretically 2 pillars which behind the 50mm distance are 300mm high and 15mm thick would comply with the regulation. Make them work correctly in crash is another pair of shoes, but if we think of it 2012 nose tips were not that thick, and they worked.
If you take for example the f2012 nose, adn you imagine it as a pillar, it is fat but maybe not too much- then it can become thinner again at the back, when more structure is added with the short nose

[henra]

One possible option would be using the pillars as part of the crash structure ( iirc the crash test is done with pillars and center part of the front wing). So theoretically 2 pillars which behind the 50mm distance are 300mm high and 15mm thick would comply with the regulation.

Ah, now I get what you are suggesting!
But don't the 9000mm^2 have to be achieved between the 135 and 250mm lower and upper limits?
Because IIRC the rules say that no point of that cross section may lie lower than 50mm below the 185mm Center line and also not above 250mm.
That give a Maximum height for the section of 115mm. And thus a minimum width of ~78,26mm.
Moreover I thought it was stated that it has to be one solid strutcure to be considered a 'section' in the sense of FIA.

Maybe I'm missing something, though.

[Blanchimont]

Moreover I thought it was stated that it has to be one solid strutcure to be considered a 'section' in the sense of FIA.

Yep, you're right with that.

§ 15.4.3
... It must have a single external cross section, in horizontal projection, of more than 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. ...

Edit: Some pictures. Note that the first 50mm of each nose are not shown, the vertical cut represents the required 9000mm² section. The white line shows the demands of §3.7.9.


Ant bear nose




Wide nose




Cut nose

[henra]

Cut nose
http://imageshack.us/a/img42/1547/txc5.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img856/3207/fyqx.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img42/2800/ynfq.png

That last one is really lateral thinking! =D>
Might be a clever option, allowing more airflow to the tray /underbody area. This approach might really be worth investigating.

[Vasconia]

well this is the 2009 Brawn. But the 2014 noses won't look anything like it.

Its a pity, because this nose looks good. But the "aero days" Mclaren looks terrible, this ultra narrow nose is horrible!!

[astracrazy]

the lateral nose you created there will be what they are referring to when they talk about ugly nose - and i suspect will be what most teams will go for.

With the nose rounded off and smoothed out transition between tub will be more accurate. I've got a verson of it in sketchup at home i'll take a pic and upload it

[turbof1]

Great job Blanchimont!

Perhaps they might be able to combine that with an upside down u-shape?

[horse]

I think I would be avoiding all the sharp edges on Blanchimont's cut nose design. Would it be possible to use a V-shaped bottom expanding to full width midway along the nose - like a hybrid between that on and the ant-bear...

[turbof1]

I think I would be avoiding all the sharp edges on Blanchimont's cut nose design. Would it be possible to use a V-shaped bottom expanding to full width midway along the nose - like a hybrid between that on and the ant-bear...

The sharp edges are there because he only showed concepts; the intention wasn't to show a refined version, just the idea. Eventual noses will have of course much smoother surfaces in order to avoid boundary layer build up.

I could live with the ant-bear nose a la mclaren mp4-21/22/23, though I might come back from that due front wings having a complete different design back then, so the overall picture might still come out disgusting.

A "cut-out" nose however, bleh... . I do hope such designs never get through crash tests.

[beelsebob]

The problem for the FIA here is that they seem insistent on using linear sections to describe where you can not put components. If they simply specified a curved function to go over the nose, and a linear function for the cross section of the nose at any point, combined with the requirement that the cross sectional area be monotonically increasing, then I think it would be pretty tough to find a reason to build an ugly nose.

[henra]

the lateral nose you created there will be what they are referring to when they talk about ugly nose - and i suspect will be what most teams will go for.

I tend to agree. At least it would be my first option to put into a wind tunnel. With some nicely rounded edges and a few variations in detailed shape between the "elephant trunk" and the wide part of the nose.
It could very well fix the problems of the low noses with the new regs.

[astracrazy]

sorry forgot to post my pic, will try and remember tonight. Its just basically as above but fully rounded.

I think most teams will go with that nose just different ways about it.

1) the position of the crash structure (nose tip) i.e how far forward/back will the go
2) the FW pillars. I'd expect them to go as wide as allowed its just the rest of the design/connection

[FW17]

Next year could have the pelican and the step (not sure if the arrangement can pass the crash test without being overly heavy)

[xDama]

That looks quite nice actually!