2014 Design

[raymondu999]

As Lycoming mentioned - it wouldn't actually be beneficial. The whole point is not raising the top side, but raising the bottom side, which this doesn't do

[Blackout]

Updated my 'drawing' : P
Looks more like an ugly GP2 or WSR, than an F1 car

[bonjon1979]

I may've missed something but I don't see why the area of bodywork dictated for the lowest part of the nose has to be square, just that it has to take up a certain area in cross section. Could teams not use a very narrow but deeper designe. Like an elongated oval shape?

[theWPTformula]

I may've missed something but I don't see why the area of bodywork dictated for the lowest part of the nose has to be square, just that it has to take up a certain area in cross section. Could teams not use a very narrow but deeper designe. Like an elongated oval shape?

Yes, they can do whatever shape they want as long as it's 9000mm^2 in cross sectional area.

[lio007]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEza9TSq4IY

Some interesting talks. But go to 15:15 for the more 2014 relevant talk.

as scarbs mentioned that there were already some clarifications by Charlie Whiting on the 2014 tech-regs...are these "clarifications" published anywhere?

[Holm86]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEza9TSq4IY

Some interesting talks. But go to 15:15 for the more 2014 relevant talk.

as scarbs mentioned that there were already some clarifications by Charlie Whiting on the 2014 tech-regs...are these "clarifications" published anywhere?

I don't think they are. I'm thinking it could have something to do with the part from the 9000 mm2 area and back to chassis. Perhaps someone has made something that was very very thin in that section. Something which would only just hold the 9000 mm2 section in place.

And it is also interesting that he says he knows for a fact that someone has made a similar design to his in carbon to test it out.

[Owen.C93]

You can probably taper off the thin nose section while still keeping the 10cm^2 cross-sectional area. Here's a 10s paint showing the underside and side view just to explain what I mean by tapering off the thin portion.

[henra]

I may've missed something but I don't see why the area of bodywork dictated for the lowest part of the nose has to be square, just that it has to take up a certain area in cross section.

I fail to see any regulation preveting that as well. only limiting the extent.

Could teams not use a very narrow but deeper designe. Like an elongated oval shape?

You can safely assume they will. Question is only how radically.

As I mentioned there are limitations :
Primarily it is limited by the minimum and maximum height of that crosss section. Which is 115 mm effectively.
So you have 9000mm^2 divided by 115mm maximum height to play with and need to achieve 9000mm^2.
That doesn't leave room for much more than rounding off edges.
Besides that every rounding will be at the cost of an increased width of that section. So it's a trade off.
When leaving it square you could go down in width to 78,26mm.
A little bit of rounding and shaping the rear side of the nose extension will definitely make sense. I expect nicely rounded and a bit shaped at the rear side but not extreme versions of it, predominantly.

[henra]

You can probably taper off the thin nose section while still keeping the 10cm^2 cross-sectional area. Here's a 10s paint showing the underside and side view just to explain what I mean by tapering off the thin portion.

That should be possible and marginally improve aerodynamics.
Buuut: It will not make the (anyway tricky) task of getting this structure through the crash test any easier. At all.

[ringo]

I'm late to the party,
Can someone summarize why there is a cricket bat handle at the front of the car?

[Joie de vivre]

To be complient with regulations (nose tip - height), but the rest is there to generate flow as much as possible under the car.

[variante]

As Lycoming mentioned - it wouldn't actually be beneficial. The whole point is not raising the top side, but raising the bottom side, which this doesn't do

Not necessarily true: to achieve a greater airflow (meant as mass/unit of time), you can either increase the section the flow is passing through (i.e. nose height), or modify the bodywork ahead of it in order to create a Venturi duct (this solution generally increases drag).

-------
edit: sorry, Owen.C93

[Owen.C93]

You can probably taper off the thin nose section while still keeping the 10cm^2 cross-sectional area. Here's a 10s paint showing the underside and side view just to explain what I mean by tapering off the thin portion.

http://i.imgur.com/Q2OeNbr.png

No, unfortunately the regulations state you cannot do that. Basically, the width of the nose can't decrease while the observer moves backward.

It doesn't does it?

[variante]

Ah, you're right Owen, i misinterpreted your drawing. My apologies.
I'll correct the original post.

[Thunder]

Regarding the use of Exhaust Gases 2014, there is an Interesting Interview with Peter Schöggl, Simulation Expert from AVL working with F1 Teams.

Basically he said you can't redirect the Exhaust Gases or Bypass them (witch we already know) but you can "convert" them. He couldn't say more to that at this Point but since he knows what some teams are doing for 2014 i think there could be some very Interesting stuff going on next year.

Here's the Link:
http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 12606.html