2014 Design

[theWPTformula]

And is it possible to shape these two parts of the upper wishbone in a way similar to the way many teams are shrouding the transmission arm, the track rod and the lower fishbone trailing part and make these two pieces look similar to the Fw-16 ?
http://www.marcosaupe.de/images/mod_FW16_09.JPG

Yes it will look like the trailing part of the FW16 upper wishbone but in two pieces instead of one. The lower wishbone has a bit more freedom in terms of cross sectional area I think, hence why they can legally house the driveshaft and track rod inside the arm.

[henra]

article with FINDIA taking about its 2014 car:

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.a ... 03004.html

Ohhh ohh, the next one who states that next years cars won't necessarily look better than the 2013 ones.
Seems like all the Teams are looking towards 'innovative' nose designs....

[theWPTformula]

article with FINDIA taking about its 2014 car:

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.a ... 03004.html

Ohhh ohh, the next one who states that next years cars won't necessarily look better than the 2013 ones.
Seems like all the Teams are looking towards 'innovative' nose designs....

Noses will be very unique next season. If you go to the thread on 2014 noses will they be the ugliest ever? there are plenty of talking points. The first 50mm of the nose tip could define the rest of the car's aerodynamic characteristics.

[theWPTformula]

I have recently updated the 2014 Front Wing Aerodynamics post on my blog. I've come up with a potential nose/chassis design and I think you can now see why they could be quite ugly things next year...

http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/

[horse]

The front bulkhead has a height of 275mm. So, wouldn't you need some sort of jump on the underside of the chassis, as well, to make use of that extra height rearward from the bulkhead?

I'm still not convinced that the same ideas apply when the nose is set to be such a barrier to the oncoming flow, so max chassis height may not be as important any more.

[theWPTformula]

The front bulkhead has a height of 275mm. So, wouldn't you need some sort of jump on the underside of the chassis, as well, to make use of that extra height rearward from the bulkhead?

I'm still not convinced that the same ideas apply when the nose is set to be such a barrier to the oncoming flow, so max chassis height may not be as important any more.

No because the nose can gradually travel up to meet the underside of the chassis in a similar way that they currently do, although I may have to double check that.

It is only a possibility. If you read the article link attached I mentioned in the final paragraph that it may not be worth venturing down this route as a lower nose/chassis combination may bring more performance as the CoG is lower.

[henra]

http://thewptformula.files.wordpress.co ... ighted.jpg

Hmm, at first glance I have some difficulties to understand why someone should go for this design?
There is a minimum height above reference plane and cross section defined for the nose. How does the step help getting more air underneath the car?
Edit: Ah I assume you would try to elevate the underside below the nose behind the A-A line by elevating the upper side immediately behind that line?!
Hmm, would that be allowed?

[theWPTformula]

http://thewptformula.files.wordpress.co ... ighted.jpg

Hmm, at first glance I have some difficulties to understand why someone should go for this design?
There is a minimum height above reference plane and cross section defined for the nose. How does the step help getting more air underneath the car?
Why would one do this?

The chassis also has a defined cross sectional area so the step has to be created to provide space beneath.

In an ideal world you would want the chassis to sweep nicely down towards the nose and the underside of the chassis to remain high to try to maximise the potential of the splitter. Unfortunately the chassis must be of a certain area at the front bulkhead so you can't pinch it in beneath, if that makes sense.

Currently, teams place the nose and chassis as high up as possible to allow more airflow into the splitter section. This creates better global downforce as a result. It is for this reason why McLaren chose to raise their nose height mid-season in 2012 and then raise the entire chassis for 2013.

[astracrazy]

so are you having the same 100mm step under the tub as you are above? just before the aa line

[theWPTformula]

so are you having the same 100mm step under the tub as you are above? just before the aa line

Not necessarily because the nose can just meet with the underside of the chassis creating a flush surface.

[astracrazy]

so i don't get what your gaining?

if your having your under body slopping (in fact it works out slightly level) from BB to AA then why the need for sudden drop on top of the tub? the top may as well tailor down from bb to aa

with your design and with a standard design your lowest point at bb @ 625 is 225mm and aa @ 525 is 250 so the volume under the tub is the same

if i have totally miss understood then i apologise, but the only way i can see with your design to increase volume would be to have the 100mm change underneath as well, but i don't think that would work too well

[slimfitcasual]

I have recently updated the 2014 Front Wing Aerodynamics post on my blog. I've come up with a potential nose/chassis design and I think you can now see why they could be quite ugly things next year...

http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/

From your site:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013 ... ront-wing/


^This looks fantastic.

[dren]

Yes, those lower noses look great.

[horse]

if i have totally miss understood then i apologise, but the only way i can see with your design to increase volume would be to have the 100mm change underneath as well, but i don't think that would work too well

That's what I was getting at. Why have the step if you're not going to use the extra 100mm of height rearward of the bulkhead, underneath the car? Basically, I think the rules now force a smooth transition if you want to effectively use the extra chassis height.

[theWPTformula]

so i don't get what your gaining?

if your having your under body slopping (in fact it works out slightly level) from BB to AA then why the need for sudden drop on top of the tub? the top may as well tailor down from bb to aa

with your design and with a standard design your lowest point at bb @ 625 is 225mm and aa @ 525 is 250 so the volume under the tub is the same

if i have totally miss understood then i apologise, but the only way i can see with your design to increase volume would be to have the 100mm change underneath as well, but i don't think that would work too well

Hmm, perhaps I'm not being very clear.

At B-B, it must be 625mm maximum height. At A-A it must be 525mm. The chassis has to be of a certain cross sectional area. Therefore if the top of A-A sweeps down towards B-B at a gentle slope then the underside must also do the same at virtually the same gradient as it has to meet the cross sectional area requirements.

By keeping the chassis at 625mm for as long as possible, the underside of the chassis can also remain high as the area requirements can be met this way. The step down to A-A on the top side is therefore necessary to allow this keep the chassis high and still be within the regulations.

Regarding the potential step beneath the chassis: The bottom of the chassis can be sloped (albeit at a bit steeper angle) to conform with the cross section regulations rather than a huge step like the top. However the advantage with this design is that the underside can still remain higher than that of a chassis that is sloping right from B-B to A-A, but only marginally.

It is difficult to explain but it is quite simple. At the end of the day it is up to the teams to decide if it is worth having a tiny bit extra volume beneath the car to play with or go with a more convential design that maximises CoG.

Apologies if I'm still unclear!