2014 Design

[avatar]

I still think the crash test is the largest downfall factor in this design, let alone getting around the wording in the regulations that would almost certainly see a clarification issued (if there hasn't been already).

Thanks, that's much more elegant/simple than what I pictured/sketched.

Yeah, if the "nose tooth" is strong enough, an off-centre frontal crash test (which I assume they use) on the non-nose tooth will cause the "riding up" that the nose rules should be preventing. It depends on how fit for purpose the crash test is...

... Putting an angle in the nose, tapering back from the nose tooth would move some of the deflection sideways, preventing some of the riding up, so might be a little safer in that respect?

Be good to see if any team tries the nose tooth design and how they get on.

Either this or the bulbous snow plough nose would be much prettier than the Drew Peacock nose, so here's hoping there's better performance in one of them!

[wuzak]

I don't see the aero benefit woth the assymetric design if you have to build a vanity panel to create the appearance of symmetry.

Also, my understanding of the vanity panel is that the car would still conform to the regulations without the panel.

[Matt Somers]

I don't see the aero benefit woth the assymetric design if you have to build a vanity panel to create the appearance of symmetry.

Also, my understanding of the vanity panel is that the car would still conform to the regulations without the panel.

I don't see how it wouldn't be an aero factor without the symmetry, as the left pylon would be 25mm whilst the right would be 78.26mm (as pictured, obviously the rigid tooth could be placed either side). I too think the vanity panel is a major issue in terms of conforming with the regs but lets be honest the whole idea flys in the face of what should be possible...

[turbof1]

I don't see the aero benefit woth the assymetric design if you have to build a vanity panel to create the appearance of symmetry.

Also, my understanding of the vanity panel is that the car would still conform to the regulations without the panel.

The aero benefit is that you can have, in reality, much more airflow underneath the nose. You are basicilly simulating pre-2014 noses. Compromised, of course, due much thicker pylons. The 'finger nose' design tries to achieve the same thing, but does block the airflow in the centre. The sabretooth solution does not, but then again blocks more airflow at the sides.

The vanity panel is not a regulatory requirement. However, you will need it to created the exact same vortices in symmetry. You can't have a car which behaves differently on the right side compared to the left side.

Matt Somers' drawing perfectly represents the idea. You could still shape the front of the nose/vanity pylon into a sharp edge; it only needs to be 9000m² in surface 50mm behind the nose tip. Before and after that point it can have whatever thickness you want, allowing you to create a venturi tunnel.

This is also the most extreme idea until now. It can't go further from the spirit of the rules then this, and it would probably require very advanced carbon fibre layer tech to get through the crashtests. Matt is completely right to say that it would probably not succeed in that, and even if it did, would be banned inmediately.

However, this is an example of how far you could theoritically go within the interpretational ruling. Although it isn't a viable option in real life, this is f1technical.net, we do speculate about these things.

Anyway, a big thanks to Matt for aiding with the technical and regulatory windows!

[Matt Somers]

No problem, couldn't resist adjusting one of my drawings in the end. As @TurboF1 states the frontal 50mm of the 'teeth' could be any shape even as low as .odd mm and funneling out to the section at 50mm rearward but IMO that would just make the crash test even more challenging.

At the end of the day, like we have proposed here with this idea the teams will try to recover some of the height and therefore space for airflow lost at the hands of the new regs. The finger nose is not what the FIA originally intended by their new regulations either but as they have not completely closed off the option it is one that will be investigated. What option turns out to be the best only time will tell and I suspect we will see several designs appear in Jerez.

[David Fraser]

I'm a little late into this but it's intriguing to see the different fees that are being floated. Has anyone an insight into what the teams are actually going for?

[David Fraser]

Fees = Ideas

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Piola's take on 2014 monkey seat and RW supports.


via Piola/AutoSport

[turbof1]

Fairly conventional. I suspect that atleast the top teams will drop the support pillars, given all the trouble they went to to get rid of them in the first place, and just attach the endplates on the floor, reinforcing it to make it sufficiently rigid.

Matt Somers reported the 150mm reg free zone beneath the rear wing has been extended to 200mm, so we'll definitely see wider Y75 (or better yet Y100) winglets.

[SectorOne]

What is the difference between Y75 and Y100? Width? Curvature? area?

[turbof1]

What is the difference between Y75 and Y100? Width? Curvature? area?

The difference is literally 25 . 25mm on both sides of the centreline, allowing you to have a longer monkey seat, for example, or a longer "mini-diffuser" like mercedes had in 2012.

http://somersf1.blogspot.be/2013/12/loo ... r-end.html

The Y100 region see's the central portion of the car increase it's design free zone by 25mm from 75mm (from the centreline) for 2014, the reason for this is the the exhaust outlet must not lie more than 100mm from the car's centreline. This of course has several implications to the approach the designers take to the surrounding components not only because it could aid aero wise but also for some might aid in structural integrity and packaging.

The increase in width from 75mm to 100mm in the central zone may not sound huge but if we consider designs like those used below by Sauber in 2013, it does offer yet more scope for intricate rear wing designs. The 'Spoon' Wing uses a dished central portion to maximise both increase in downforce whilst maintaining a similar level of drag. Of course the design is implemented to cater for a wide range of speed and yaw angles and so although it may not be the best design for all conditions it makes up for it in others. Furthermore the original intention was to utilise this style of rear wing with DRD but with Sauber struggling initially in 2013 (due to the change in tyre construction) their design perhaps never reached it's maximum potential.

This something most of us have missed.

[SectorOne]

Thanks!

[Blanchimont]

When i first looked at the 2014 technical regulations at the beginning of the year, the Y100 region extendend up to 150mm behind the rear wheel center line, and the Y75 volume from that point to 350mm behind the rear wheel center line.

Is it still that way or is the Y75 volume gone right now?

[Matt Somers]

When i first looked at the 2014 technical regulations at the beginning of the year, the Y100 region extendend up to 150mm behind the rear wheel center line, and the Y75 volume from that point to 350mm behind the rear wheel center line.

Is it still that way or is the Y75 volume gone right now?

3.9.2 There must be no bodywork behind a line 30mm forward of the rear wheel centre line which lies between 100mm and 355mm from the car centre line and between 150mm and 750mm above the reference plane.

&

3.10.3 No part of the car between 75mm and 355mm from the car centre line may be more than 350mm behind the rear wheel centre line.

[wuzak]

And yet:

3.10.8 Any horizontal section between 600mm and 750mm above the reference plane, taken through bodywork located rearward of a point lying 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and less than 75mm from the car centre line, may contain no more than two closed symmetrical sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm2. The thickness of each section may not exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line.
Once fully defined, the section at 745mm above the reference plane may be extruded upwards to join the sections defined in Article 3.10.2. A fillet radius no greater than 10mm may be used where these sections join.