2014 Design

[Borealis]

The protruding tip could meet all the nose tip regs as far as I can make out including tip length, height and section if necessary. Which rule would this be violating?

Obviously would be much stronger pylons for the front wing and allow much more under body airflow. This has been modelled to all the necessary 2014 reference planes and dimensions including wing width, bulkhead height etc.




Apologies if this issue has been discussed already, first post here.

[siskue2005]

Hello everyone I am an Italian with a passion for technical f1


http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/33657/ ... lla-scocca
(Giorgio Piola)posted this rumor about the Force India

wouldnt that lower yellow section cause stagnation of air?

here is autosport magazine

[scarbs]

Giorgio Piola posted this rumor about the Force India

Giorgio is right, the front bulkhead will be lower at 525mm then slope up to the max 625mm height, this stepped chassis will be common across the grid. I don’t see any team simply sloping the entire nose front the dash bulkhead down to the front bulkhead, there’s simply too much space under the raised chassis to exploit.
Caterham and Saubers front end will also have this set up and I have drawn this in my Red Bull RB10 prediction too. I suspect the top of the step with be cleaned up with a vanity panel and the aerodynamically awkward step underneath with turning vanes, fairings or an “S” duct, as in my RB10 concept.

[Manoah2u]

The protruding tip could meet all the nose tip regs as far as I can make out including tip length, height and section if necessary. Which rule would this be violating?

Obviously would be much stronger pylons for the front wing and allow much more under body airflow. This has been modelled to all the necessary 2014 reference planes and dimensions including wing width, bulkhead height etc.

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6655/ispj.jpg
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3609/6qmx.jpg

Apologies if this issue has been discussed already, first post here.

there's been discussions about this type of nose a few pages back, it'd be interesting to see your explenation and why you would think or state this is legal or not [not that i'm saying it would break them, i just think it's more interesting to see why something would be legal rather then it would be illegal]

[scarbs]

Most noses with a legal tip position will fall foul of the single closed section rule. Image the nose's side face being sliced through, if there's more than one slice exposed, then its not legal.

[adrianjordan]

That Autosport cover is one of the worst noses I've seen yet...

[theWPTformula]

That Autosport cover is one of the worst noses I've seen yet...

As seen on the Caterham during crash testing in late December! It's Scarbs' drawing on the Autosport cover I believe, although he has an image on his Twitter account. It's come up in this thread before, have a look back.

[atanatizante]

Regarding the out-wash or in-wash FW which way to go dilemma teams are facing this year: could it be a solution somewhere in the middle? Like creating a FW with both out-wash vortex and in-wash one and all together being routed in order to join in the low pressure area created behind of the tyre?

[wuzak]

If they added a rule that required a large minimum radius, would that stop these ugly creations?

[Huntresa]

If they added a rule that required a large minimum radius, would that stop these ugly creations?

They could just up the size they have stipulated, its not rly hard.

[theWPTformula]

This is just my opinion, but utilising an in-wash design could undo all the development they have done in the Y250 region. An in-wash endplate could disrupt the vortices being produced in this area that are designed to shield the floor from the front tyre wake. Out-wash endplates (and the vanes seen on the RBR late last year) help negate turbulence on the outer shoulder of the tyre, aiding the floor further downstream. Therefore I personally see out-wash as the better design philosophy.

Does anyone have any evidence to suggest that in-wash could be better?

[Borealis]

Most noses with a legal tip position will fall foul of the single closed section rule. Image the nose's side face being sliced through, if there's more than one slice exposed, then its not legal.

Hi Scarbs, thanks for the explanation.

So this is legal?



Could still maintain a lot of under nose airflow and meet the regs. The tip shape (shown here as a simple ellipsoid) could be manipulated to meet the tip regs.

[Steven]

@Borealis: No that is very certainly not legal. This will not pass the single section rule, while the front wing must also be supported by 2 pylons, rather than one as in your sketch.

[scarbs]

Most noses with a legal tip position will fall foul of the single closed section rule. Image the nose's side face being sliced through, if there's more than one slice exposed, then its not legal.

Hi Scarbs, thanks for the explanation.

So this is legal?

Could still maintain a lot of under nose airflow and meet the regs. The tip shape (shown here as a simple ellipsoid) could be manipulated to meet the tip regs.

At some point the full width of the lower tip needs to meet the upper nose. Thus we have the finger or snow plough ramp concepts.

[astracrazy]

So this is legal?

your falling foul of the single section again (as well as two pillars). If i sliced the nose along the red, then it will leave two visible sections arrowed in blue (if i looked from the side). It can only ever be one