2014 Design

[idfx]

Model: IDFX-2014-5a

[idfx]

Model: IDFX-2014-6a

Model IDFX-2014-6b

[Manoah2u]

Model: IDFX-2014-3b
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-27-T ... 014-3b.jpg

i like that

[SectorOne]

Extremely impressed by the work, very nice!
Nose doesn´t look that bad either.

Edit: i would also advise you to put more then one picture in each post. You can still separate them in the post.

[neilbah]

really nice work idfx, not trying to discredit you but alas in term of 2014 rules only the first one would be legal, the rule which forbids them is the single section ruling and if you splice through these designs off center then there is more than one section is created - even if it is made of one continuous part. Many designs throughout this thread including my own have fallen foul of this.

[Lazy]

really nice work idfx, not trying to discredit you but alas in term of 2014 rules only the first one would be legal, the rule which forbids them is the single section ruling and if you splice through these designs off center then there is more than one section is created - even if it is made of one continuous part. Many designs throughout this thread including my own have fallen foul of this.

The lotus design would suggest there are ways round that.

[hollus]

... It would actually be the most powerful engines that need the smallest radiators because they are the ones which are the most efficient...

Very interesting thought borrowed from the Ferrari thread. If you get more energy to propel your car, you waste less energy as released heat; you get to have the most HP for the 27.7 grams/second of fuel and the best aero. It makes sense, but it means that the best engine will have a double advantage. So maybe 3-4 teams will simply run away with everything.
The only other possible tradeoff is letting that heat out of the tail of the exhaust, which also leads to smaller radiators, but in 2014, less power.

[neilbah]

really nice work idfx, not trying to discredit you but alas in term of 2014 rules only the first one would be legal, the rule which forbids them is the single section ruling and if you splice through these designs off center then there is more than one section is created - even if it is made of one continuous part. Many designs throughout this thread including my own have fallen foul of this.

The lotus design would suggest there are ways round that.

if this is the lotus nose and you slice through it like so there is only one section. I gather the lotus is ok because i dont think it has to pass cut transversely in a vertical fashion.



im only repeating what i was told earlier in the thread when i drew a nose that thinned then got wider again.

[Blackout]

F1 chassis homologation?
Do the technical regulations include anything about 2014 cars being homologated, I had a look on FIA website and can't find anything. Apart from once the crash test is passed that part is homologated. Therefore with the different front nose designs seen so far will the teams be able to change the design. For example if the RB10 turns up with something that's a second faster can the rest copy it? I know that changing the front end changes the aero all the way to the back and you may have to change the whole philosophy of the car. It seems teams regularly turn up with new front wings and I assume these are attached to the front crash structure which has passed the crash test.
I remember something about chassis homologation back in 2012 when the RRA was being enforced but what about 2014?

[idfx]

really nice work idfx, not trying to discredit you but alas in term of 2014 rules only the first one would be legal, the rule which forbids them is the single section ruling and if you splice through these designs off center then there is more than one section is created - even if it is made of one continuous part. Many designs throughout this thread including my own have fallen foul of this.

The lotus design would suggest there are ways round that.

if this is the lotus nose and you slice through it like so there is only one section. I gather the lotus is ok because i dont think it has to pass cut transversely in a vertical fashion.

http://i.imgur.com/wsfDmhy.jpg

im only repeating what i was told earlier in the thread when i drew a nose that thinned then got wider again.

This is the post Scarbs.
http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2014/01/23/f1 ... ger-noses/
My design can be according to the rules. They have a single section. I make a projection. is inspired by mclaren

[idfx]

Model: IDFX-2014-3b
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-27-T ... 014-3b.jpg

i like that

thank very much.
Finished modeling the mirrors and rear wing, I post. You'll like

[SectorOne]

I was under the impression the virtual cut through the nose is up down and from tire to tire (forgot the name of that view)
Which is why Lotus has a longer nose tip so that it doesn´t cut through both noses.

Edit: like this,

[neilbah]

but in scarbs own post...



with the exception of 1a and 4a, the noses you have posted fall foul according to this. thats all im trying to say, unless you want to show why they are excluded with some clever interpretation

[Huntresa]

Also every nose with just 1 pylon is illegal.

[f1316]

... It would actually be the most powerful engines that need the smallest radiators because they are the ones which are the most efficient...

Very interesting thought borrowed from the Ferrari thread. If you get more energy to propel your car, you waste less energy as released heat; you get to have the most HP for the 27.7 grams/second of fuel and the best aero. It makes sense, but it means that the best engine will have a double advantage. So maybe 3-4 teams will simply run away with everything.
The only other possible tradeoff is letting that heat out of the tail of the exhaust, which also leads to smaller radiators, but in 2014, less power.

From the look of the Ferrari and Sauber, you'd suggest the Ferrari engine needs less cooling than the merc - would be opposite of rumours if this theory is correct.

Tough to tell with the Renault so far.