With the track debut of the new V6 turbo engines coming closer and closer, teams are admitting that one of the major challenges of getting and efficient and reliable package will be managing the cooling systems.
3 or 4 are doing the finger nose. RBR are doing something different. Don't know about the rest.David Fraser wrote: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?
Where have you got this information?Owen.C93 wrote: 3 or 4 are doing the finger nose. RBR are doing something different. Don't know about the rest.
The problem that I see with this approach is in the severity of the compromise.turbof1 wrote:wuzak wrote: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.
Totally agree that the blockage is bad but depending on how much you can rob from the pylon that the nose butts upto you can reduce that blockage by upto 40mm.henra wrote:The problem that I see with this approach is in the severity of the compromise.turbof1 wrote:wuzak wrote: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.
since you need a minimum width of 78,26mm and with a syymetric vanity panel would have twice that you would have a blocked width of 156,52mm.
That is roughly half the front bulkhead width.
Too much blockage IMHO to gain anything.
I would rather see a combination of the Blanchimont Type nose with the snowplow/T-Tray design where both elements together satisify the 9000 mm^2 allowing a thin central Finger/Pylon plus a rather thin horizontal tray to which the FW pylons are attached on the lower side. I haven't seen anything in the rules that would prevent that.
edit* i know the top of the vanity panel/B type wedge wouldnt be horizontal on top...Yup. That was exactly what I had in my mind.neilbah wrote:http://i.imgur.com/MvbHKJm.jpg
How could you take 40mm off this width while complying to the rules?Matt Somers wrote: Totally agree that the blockage is bad but depending on how much you can rob from the pylon that the nose butts upto you can reduce that blockage by upto 40mm.
The spirit of the rules is what the rules are trying to achieve.neilbah wrote:in the 'spirit' of the rules (whatever that means)
Shave it out of the pylons, the pylon has a maximum width of 25mm but no minimum, design the pylon to accept say 20mm of the tooth section and when the two are placed together you still get the rigidity. The vanity panel on the opposing side simply has to look like the main tooth and so the other pylon can be solid whilst the vanit panel mirrors the the main tooths 20mm reduction = an extra 40mm of centralized airflow space. Of course I'm going to an extreme at 20mm that might not be achievable but it's to illustrate how you rob Peter to pay Paul.henra wrote:How could you take 40mm off this width while complying to the rules?Matt Somers wrote: Totally agree that the blockage is bad but depending on how much you can rob from the pylon that the nose butts upto you can reduce that blockage by upto 40mm.
Not really. The nose is designed to absorb energy and crumble on impact. Your tent peg is not designed for any of that.djos wrote:The much smaller tip area would surely punch a hole thru the side of a tub much more easily than a 2013 "wide" nose would in the same way a nail has more penetrating power than a large tent peg!
