Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

[rjsa]

What if the car had no splitter?

This
Flat bottom.

All the way to the back, no diffuser.

Rule designed ground force venturies aligned with the CG.

Fixes the front/rear wing proportion issue to.

[flattyre]

I honestly don't see what the "problem" is. who cares if the noses are a little funky? I think it gives them character; so far we have 5 out of 5 completely unique takes on the nose design. I think most fans would agree that the sport is over-regulated as it is, so why should we support even more regulation to change something that doesn't affect the racing whatsoever?

That's a fair point, but the whole thing is a balancing act really. It's no secret that the sport is trying to move away from becoming an unforgiving 'pure' sport, and more a hybrid of sport and entertainment. I'm sure the majority of people watching, ie the casual fans who just happen to find out it's on TV that day, would turn off if the cars became monstrosities. Of course, what we have now is in no way a monstrosity, but you do get the feeling that the looks of the car aren't really considered too important by the rulemakers at the moment.

Reading through this topic, I've come up with a simple outline that incorporates some of the ideas shown by others, and placed a few idealogies of my own. To encourage the classic low nose:
> Flat floor throughout the car ahead of the rear wheels
> Only convex bodywork in the nose section
> Possibly make a rule to ensure the nose 'attached' to the floor.

I think the midsection of the car, ie. everything between the front wing and the rear wing, is one of the most beautiful examples I've seen in F1's entire history - I thought this around about 2010, and still think it today. For that reason, I'm happy for them to keep the current rules, with perhaps a few exceptions -
> Winglets beside the wingmirrors, sidepods etc. banned
> Bargeboards should either be banned or heavily restricted (both for looks and to discourage the front splitter)

Now, a common talking point is the proportion of the front and rear wings. I don't think they're too bad, honestly, but I do think it would look a bit better if the rear wing were slightly wider - perhaps halfway between 2008 and 2009 dimensions. To compensate for the increase in downforce, the rear wing could further be made more shallow.

It might sound like a lot of draconian restrictions, but, when you think about it, it's no more artificial than the current rules we have today - just slightly different. You'd probably still see the same rate of development as today, too. I think it's pretty important to have good looking cars, because then, if it's a boring race, at least you can sit back and admire the sight of 22 stunning cars, the quickest in the world, blasting around tracks like Monaco and Spa. When a car is a work of art, it's easy to get completely absorbed in the sight of a single car doing laps - good for viewers and also, importantly, for sponsors.

[lebesset]

I honestly don't see what the "problem" is. who cares if the noses are a little funky? I think it gives them character; so far we have 5 out of 5 completely unique takes on the nose design. I think most fans would agree that the sport is over-regulated as it is, so why should we support even more regulation to change something that doesn't affect the racing whatsoever?

+1

[hollus]

I also don't think there is a problem with the current noses.

But assuming there is one, then it all originates in the fact that there is such an excess of front downforce available that the teams can afford to take a wing that has just been reduced in width, sacrifice a good chunk of that width to move air to the sides and to produce vortices (no end plates towards the center, and not because the rules mandate that). They do that to enhance downforce further back, and still have excess downforce available.

So if the problem is originating because the front is at the service of the back, then the solution is obvious (IMO): flatter front wings. No new rules, instead less rules. Just make the current box where wing elements can go much flatter. Then the teams will lack front downforce again, as in the "good old times" (that is what the ground effect achieved in terms of design). When the target is to maximize front downforce, then the nose cone becomes an element at the service of producing front downforce too, and it would naturally be lower, smoother and sloping upwards towards the chassis.

[Lycoming]

I think eliminating the neutral center section of the front wing would go a long way toward solving F1's "nose problem," because creating downforce right then and there is a far more efficient use of that real estate than using it to move airflow toward the rear of the car.

I disagree. The undertray is more efficient in terms of drag than any wing. The incentive to feed clean airflow to the undertray still exists.

Also, they want to reduce dependence on the front wing for downforce because that's the part that loses the most performance when following another car.

It's just a brainstorm idea, but perhaps a standardized nosecone shape would bring a solution.
Teams would however be allowed to bolt on strakes and flaps to a limited extent.

Yea, let's make F1 even more of a spec series.

This
Flat bottom.

All the way to the back, no diffuser.

There is a diffuser.

[kilcoo316]

What single element in the regulations could be changed to eliminate the wish for designers to move air under the car

Simples.

Any bodywork* that can be seen from directly underneath the car must reside on one of two planes. Either the plank, or the stepped plane.


*with the obvious exceptions of a design volume for the front suspension, a design volume for the front wing and a design volume for the diffuser.

[monsi]

I honestly don't see what the "problem" is. who cares if the noses are a little funky? I think it gives them character; so far we have 5 out of 5 completely unique takes on the nose design. I think most fans would agree that the sport is over-regulated as it is, so why should we support even more regulation to change something that doesn't affect the racing whatsoever?

+1

+1

[WillerZ]

That wouldn't work; rake the car and the whole floor becomes a diffuser which you need to get air underneath.

[Cuky]

There is a problem with noses which has to be solved? Just because something is a bit different doesn't make it ugly. And F1 designers are engineers, they are not artists. Their job is to produce cars that are fast, not ones that are good looking.

[kilcoo316]

That wouldn't work; rake the car and the whole floor becomes a diffuser which you need to get air underneath.

You can only add so much rake before you start stalling the floor...

[xDama]

I find it quite interesting to see/read about all the commotion about the noses. To this day we've seen 4 designs in detail and 6 in total. Yet, almost half of F1T and all the social media are going absolute mental about the current noses.

I find it even more interesting to see all the current commotion, while almost every team has admitted that they're working on different solutions, what could very well mean that we'll see different noses/designs in Melbourne.

My general thought about it all is: give it a rest and give it some time before you all start complaining about what's wrong and how it should be fixed. The cars haven't even driven a mile... The Internet and it's users are becoming a spiral of negativity, and the launch of the new F1 era is another prime example of this.

[rich1701]

The noses ARE a problem.

Things that are aesthetically pleasing are easier to market on posters and billboards. That's what it boils down to. you can argue it doesn't matter, that it's just a functional thing, but the general consensus will be that this years cars are ugly due to poorly conceived regulations. And that simply will not be tolerated by the media, or by the fans.

Ugly is bad for the image of the sport.

[bhall]

[...]

Ugly is bad for the image of the sport.

Moreover, concessions are already made for the appearance of the cars in the form of regulations that require open wheels and an open cockpit. Neither are ideal solutions from a performance standpoint, but each is a fixture of F1 design simply because that's how fans expect F1 cars to look.

Visual appeal has value, and F1 knows it.

[Lycoming]

And that simply will not be tolerated by the media, or by the fans.

Ugly is bad for the image of the sport.

They'll all still watch it though. They will not take it kindly at all, no sir!

But they'll still watch it.

[Moxie]

I must disagree with most of you. There are many things I complain about FOM screwing up in F1, but this is one thing they have right. Without funky engineering, we would have never seen wings on cars, the Tyrrell P34...and so many other innovations over the years. So the noses aren't aesthetically pleasing...oh well. Winning is a beautiful thing.