2014 Design

[horse]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYZB6VlCAAEL6oK.jpg:large

Now this one is ugly.

I'm not sure if I like the idea of a single symmetric pylon, aerodynamically, as it would probably set up a vortex street behind it. With two pylons at opposite non-zero angles of attack relative to the vertical plane, you should have more control over how the vortices from them will evolve.

[EDIT] With further thought, perhaps the wake of the single pylon does not matter too much, given it will be so small anyway, but it still seems a waste of the potential to do more with the two pylons in terms of vortex control.

[theWPTformula]

Yes, article 3.7.2 in the regulations. Must be no greater than 25mm wide and maximum area of 5000mm^2 in total.

Makes no sense, i guess you have the wrong article

25mm wide when viewed from the front (not from the side); "less than 250mm from the car centre line" indicates within the Y250 region; "between 125mm and 135mm above the reference plane" is the thickness of the central portion of the wing.

Unless I am very much mistaken this is the correct article.

[Lazy]

Apologies for the crude and not to scale drawing but could anyone enlighten me on the legality of this configuration please?

[Joie de vivre]

honestly ... if we see those kind of noses ... utter bs

[SectorOne]

It´s like the FIA wants ugly noses these days.
-

Are these types of sidepods good in terms of not creating lift?
Very clear distinction between vertical and horizontal which is different from what we see today where it all blends in and slopes downwards causing lift(?)

[theWPTformula]

It´s like the FIA wants ugly noses these days.
-

Are these types of sidepods good in terms of not creating lift?
Very clear distinction between vertical and horizontal which is different from what we see today where it all blends in and slopes downwards causing lift(?)

http://www.supercarfrance.com/RM-Auctio ... _641-2.JPG

Flat surfaces tend to create lift but not to the level of downward sloping surfaces. Could see something similar to the launch version of the RB6/7 but on a slightly bigger, bulkier scale?

[theWPTformula]

http://i43.tinypic.com/v5vk1h.jpg

Apologies for the crude and not to scale drawing but could anyone enlighten me on the legality of this configuration please?

As long as the crash structure extends from 185mm above the RP at the front wing to 250mm above the RP (in line with the base of the front bulkhead) with the same cross sectional area (9000mm^2) it's legal.

This is quite an interesting idea. As long as the periscope arrangement - curving up towards the vanity panel - remains the same cross sectional area as the rest of the structure extending to the front wing it seems feasible.

[ringo]

I'd like to know why most of the designs here have the nose tip kinked upwards?
Are you guys doing this for any particular reason? or is it because of what you have seen on the previous year's cars?

It's not wise to design from styling, you be surprised at what wont work if you don't understand why it is how it is.

3.7.8 Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical
cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front
wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the
reference plane.

This rule above makes all the noses above illegal by the way. Especially the boat hull bulb thingy. If you take any section outside of the webbing you will have 2 sections.

The nose must have a tapered shape taping away from the nose tip basically, if it is to comply with the above rule.

[ringo]

Hello,
I've been a long-time follower of F1technical but this is my first post here so it's an opportunity to me to tell you how good this place is!
I've been doing cars before for the Grand Prix 4 game and I've tried to do a car based to the 2014 regulations :
http://s536.photobucket.com/user/Mitsur ... d.jpg.html

I was about to ask if such nose would be legal and efficient but seeing Scarbs sketching this means that it may not a bad idea! What would be the advantage/disadvantage of this kind of nose over the Blanchimont-type nose?

yeah this may be illegal, see above post.

something like this may work, dont mind the quality of the image.

[Lazy]

I'd like to know why most of the designs here have the nose tip kinked upwards?
Are you guys doing this for any particular reason? or is it because of what you have seen on the previous year's cars?

It's not wise to design from styling, you be surprised at what wont work if you don't understand why it is how it is.

3.7.8 Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical
cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front
wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the
reference plane.

This rule above makes all the noses above illegal by the way. Especially the boat hull bulb thingy. If you take any section outside of the webbing you will have 2 sections.

The nose must have a tapered shape taping away from the nose tip basically, if it is to comply with the above rule.

I see, but from the regs it appears that the vanity panel and camera housing are exempt from this rule.

3.7.8 Only a single section, which must be open, may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section taken parallel to the car centre line forward of a point 150mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, less than 250mm from the car centre line and more than 125mm above the reference plane.
Any cameras or camera housings approved by the FIA in addition to a single inlet aperture for the purpose of driver cooling (such aperture having a maximum projected surface area of 1500mm2 and being situated forward of the section referred to in Article 15.4.3) will be exempt from the above.

Maybe I should attach the cameras to the vanity panel (as it appears Caterham have done).

[Lycoming]

something like this may work, dont mind the quality of the image.

http://s1010.photobucket.com/user/ducka ... 0.png.html

dat stress concentration...

[Tim.Wright]

A few ripper one-liners from Jenson here: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111874

A few interesting points too. Not quite sure what he means by going into 8th gear before 7th though.

Winter testing is going to be hilarious in Jerez. It will be cold, the tyres aren't going to work, the cars probably won't work either and when you do get a lap it is probably going to feel weird because you are running higher gears - you get into eighth gear before you get to seventh gear now.

There will be a lot less downforce as there will be no [exhaust] blowing. I don't care what they say, there is still a massive amount of blowing on an F1 car.

You need a throttle pedal that is a metre long to control the torque of the engine.

As much as I hate these new powertrains, if they do indeed upset the torque/grip ratio and make the cars a lot more undrivable at least we will be able to see some decent car control back in F1. Something like in the 80s when the 1000PS qualifying engines had the cars dancing on the exit of every corner and halfway up the next straight.

[Huntresa]

He means that he will change upto 8th gear on the Turbo engine before he changes into 7th gear on the old V8s

[Holm86]

you get into eighth gear before you get to seventh gear now.

Im pretty sure its because the gears are longer next year. Or you stay in the same gear for larger rpm span.

So what he means is that on the new engines you shift into 8. gear before you would shift into 7. gear on the old engines.

[Holm86]

He means that he will change upto 8th gear on the Turbo engine before he changes into 7th gear on the old V8s

You beat me to it