Nose cone idea

[rjsa]

Manchild, you are failing basic strctural theory.

I know all this stuff in portuguese, I'll see if I find something in english to post.



This is completelly wrong, you can take my word for granted here.

[shawness]

I thought it is more than logical. A rectangle or a pipe shaped object, whatever, which has diameter of 5 inch is much stronger than one with diameter of 50 inches if they are made of identical thickness material. So, if thickness of current Ferrari nose is for example 1 inch and if the cross section is reduced that would allow thinner walls (less weight). As simple as that.

And entirely, totally wrong.

The compressive strength of a tube is directionally proportional to the amount of material in the section. For the sake of simplicity, if we say that the nose is completely square in section, 200mm on a side and 10mm think, you have a material section of 76cm2. If you narrow the tube to 150mm on a side while maintaining the 1cm thickness, you have a material section of 56cm2. To maintain the same strength, you have to increase the wall thickness.

Of course, since you're using the same amount of material but in a smaller package, it'd weigh the same, and would have a (marginally) lower COG - if you weren't slapping a whole load of stuff up on top for your wing. Don't kid yourself about it being all eggshell thin and weighing nothing - to take the stresses it would have to be of fairly substantial construction.

Why make it 3 or 5 mm thick when it can withstand force being less than 0.5 mm thick? Keg would collapse if made as thin as can but can doesn't. Get my point?

Because an aluminium drinks can is designed to be DISPOSABLE. A beer keg has to be more durable because they're supposed to be re-used. They also get a lot rougher treatment.

[teecof1fan]

I still don't understand all the fuss about the integrity of manchild's most recent design idea. It sounds like people see it as taking a big part out of the nose, but really it's just adding a little piece on top. Just take the nose and add the bridge part to it. Maybe they would lower the nose to add the piece, but that doesnt mean it's any weaker. Like I said in my other post, we see tons of different nose shapes but they all pass the crash tests. Now the original idea with the hole running up through the bottom and out the top presents a challenge, but don't you think that the Ferrari Formula One Team, with all their brainpower, manpower, and money, could figure it out

[manchild]

And entirely, totally wrong.

The compressive strength of a tube is directionally proportional to the amount of material in the section. For the sake of simplicity, if we say that the nose is completely square in section, 200mm on a side and 10mm think, you have a material section of 76cm2. If you narrow the tube to 150mm on a side while maintaining the 1cm thickness, you have a material section of 56cm2. To maintain the same strength, you have to increase the wall thickness.

That's got nothing to do with logic. Smaller tube regardless on shape with walls of same thickness as larger tube can withstand greater forces than larger tube. Have you ever seen a waterworks 1/2 inch pipe that has thicker walls than 2/3 pipe?

if you weren't slapping a whole load of stuff up on top for your wing.

What load of stuff? Since top of the nose would be lowered, the walls of the nose could be thinner whith upper extensions very thin or even hollow. That little wing not bigger than A4 paper wouldn't increase weight to any amount that would be worth mentioning relative to reduction of weight trough possibilities emerging from smaller cross section.

Because an aluminium drinks can is designed to be DISPOSABLE.

No, because aluminum drinks cans have been designed to cost as little as possible and to be able to withstand transportation and inner pressure. When aluminum cans were introduced no one knew what recycling is or about garbage disposal problem. The first canning facility was established in 1813, while first drink cans were introduced in 1909. By October 1937, some 23 breweries were producing over 40 different brands of canned beer!

That's the logic of F1 - to design stuff that is within regulations and give you great performance with minimum losses trough weight, drag, price...

I know that beer kegs are meant to last but what I tried to point out is F1 related and in F1 things are not meant to last. If nose with smaller cross section would be aerodynamically ok and additionally lower weight than no one would care if it can be used for only one race relative to thicker nose that can be used for several races.

The only structural demand in front of F1 nose is to pass FIA crash test. If it can pass it than nothing else matters structure-wise since they are already thicker than necessary for no other reason but passing FIA crash test.

[shawness]

I still don't understand all the fuss about the integrity of manchild's most recent design idea. It sounds like people see it as taking a big part out of the nose, but really it's just adding a little piece on top. Just take the nose and add the bridge part to it. Maybe they would lower the nose to add the piece, but that doesnt mean it's any weaker. Like I said in my other post, we see tons of different nose shapes but they all pass the crash tests. Now the original idea with the hole running up through the bottom and out the top presents a challenge, but don't you think that the Ferrari Formula One Team, with all their brainpower, manpower, and money, could figure it out

The issue isn't that we're saying it's impossible, it's just that manchild was claiming it'd be lighter, even though he was adding structure - which is impossible. You could certainly build manchild's ideas, you just wouldn't want to.

The concept that Ferrari are supposedly experimenting with is NOT what manchild has been suggesting. Manchild is talking about inserting an aerodynamic surfaces into some type of large duct in the nose, or incorporating the surface into the form of the duct itself. The concept won't work as you're basically trying to increase the net level of downforce by inserting a wing into something that ALREADY generates downforce. It's like thinking you'll get more downforce if you inserted tiny little airfoils into the surface of the front wing, or to quote someone who has designed actual, real Formula 1 cars, 'Like trying to pick yourself up by your bootlaces'

Ferrari (and Autosprint, Autosport et al ) are talking about is a SMALL duct just behind the rear edge of the front wing, designed to bleed off some of the high pressure air where it hits the bottom of the nose and extend the downforce-generating area of the low pressure under the nose forward slightly. Other than the fact it features a hole in the nose, it's a fundamentally different concept. Saying it's the same idea is like comparing a hairdryer and a jet engine.

[rjsa]

C'mon guys, have a look at the concept of moment (torque?) and moments of inertia.

Larger diameter tubes with the same wall thicknes are much stronger than thinner ones since you keep the same length.

Take a ruller and try to bent it, it will bend in the thin side, but won't in the thick one. The ruller has the same amount of material both ways, but it's cross section in the longer side has a much greater moment of inertia.

[teecof1fan]

I really don't think it's about weight either: they build the cars well underweight so they can add ballast where they want it. I'm sure they can account for a few extra bits of carbon on the front nose...

[manchild]

The issue isn't that we're saying it's impossible, it's just that manchild was claiming it'd be lighter, even though he was adding structure - which is impossible. You could certainly build manchild's ideas, you just wouldn't want to.

Yes I claim that tube of smaller diameter requires less material in walls. Prove me wrong.

Do you know why a balloon bursts when you inflate it too much? Because its walls become thinner as the pressure increases. To be able to inflate it with more air you'd need a thicker walls and vice versa. It's elementary school stuff!

The concept that Ferrari are supposedly experimenting with is NOT what manchild has been suggesting...

Now, how about reading the topic from page one

This idea with lowered nose top and additional wing is second idea presented in same thread. If you read topic from page one than there'd be no need for me to explain you that.

[shawness]

That's got nothing to do with logic. Smaller tube regardless on shape with walls of same thickness as larger tube can withstand greater forces than larger tube. Have you ever seen a waterworks 1/2 inch pipe that has thicker walls than 2/3 pipe?

You can try arguing the point as much as you like, but you're still WRONG. This is PHYSICS. You can't argue the laws of physics around to your point of view, even on the internet!

The only structural demand in front of F1 nose is to pass FIA crash test. If it can pass it than nothing else matters structure-wise since they are already thicker than necessary for no other reason but passing FIA crash test.

You're wrong. They have to support the front wing, which at full speed is like having four fully-grown adults hanging on the nose.

[shawness]

Yes I claim that tube of smaller diameter requires less material in walls. Prove me wrong.

I already did, in very simple terms. Try actually reading what I said and understanding it before making yourself look like an idiot by arguing against the laws of physics.

Do you know why a balloon bursts when you inflate it too much? Because its walls become thinner as the pressure increases. To be able to inflate it with more air you'd need a thicker walls and vice versa. It's elementary school stuff!

Wrong. A balloon bursts when you over-inflate it because you're exceeding the tensile strength of the rubber. You'll probably get on to that once you graduate from elementary school...

Now, how about reading the topic from page one

This idea with lowered nose top and additional wing is second idea presented in same thread. If you read topic from page one than there'd be no need for me to explain you that.

I've read the whole thread from the beginning several times, with interest. If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I was explaining why both your ideas aren't going to work, and how your FIRST idea is different the supposed Ferrari concept.

[manchild]

You can try arguing the point as much as you like, but you're still WRONG. This is PHYSICS. You can't argue the laws of physics around to your point of view, even on the internet!

That's exactly what I claim you're in collision with - the basic PHYSICS.

You're wrong. They have to support the front wing, which at full speed is like having four fully-grown adults hanging on the nose.

Compare thickness of the nose cone walls before and after FIA introduced obligatory crash test. Front wing carried even greater loads back in days when cars were 2 meters wide but the nose walls were much thinner.

[manchild]

Wrong. A balloon bursts when you over-inflate it because you're exceeding the tensile strength of the rubber.

Tensile strength of the rubber is limited by thickness. If it was thicker it wouldn't burst as same pressure.

...and how your FIRST idea is different the supposed Ferrari concept.

I've never claimed that I know what Ferrari is up to, I was only guessing, but you seam to claim you KNOW. So, please present to the F1 world official info about Ferrari concept since you deny my suggestions, autosport, Piola and who knows else.

(Although I think doing that in forum instead of selling that exclusive story to some F1 magazine wouldn't be a smart thing to do.)

[teecof1fan]

"shawness:The issue isn't that we're saying it's impossible, it's just that manchild was claiming it'd be lighter, even though he was adding structure - which is impossible. You could certainly build manchild's ideas, you just wouldn't want to."

In principle its impossible, but in reality in is perfectly possible because, like I said, they add ballast wherever they want it. The 07 car could have 10 kilos of ballast in the nose, and the 08 could have this structure and no ballast and therefore weigh 8 or 9 kilos less than the 07 car.

"shawness: The concept won't work as you're basically trying to increase the net level of downforce by inserting a wing into something that ALREADY generates downforce."

Who says it has to produce downforce? Plenty of aero bits on the cars aren't meant to produce downforce, they are meant to clean up the airflow and direct it to or away from certain areas.

"shawness: Ferrari (and Autosprint, Autosport et al ) are talking about is a SMALL duct just behind the rear edge of the front wing, designed to bleed off some of the high pressure air where it hits the bottom of the nose and extend the downforce-generating area of the low pressure under the nose forward slightly."


Yes, we know that there are two different concepts going on here, manchild was the one who told you to go back and read the whole thread to check each of them out, not the other way around. If in fact you did read the whole thread, you would see that what you said is redundant--it's already been discussed. And you'll notice I distinguished between these two designs in my post.

Anyway, I still maintain that the only issue here is aero; weight and construction don't matter with either of these designs because the teams will figure that part out.

[shawness]

I've never claimed that I know what Ferrari is up to, I was only guessing, but you seam to claim you KNOW. So, please present to the F1 world official info about Ferrari concept since you deny my suggestions, autosport, Piola and who knows else.

(Although I think doing that in forum instead of selling that exclusive story to some F1 magazine wouldn't be a smart thing to do.)

I don't know anything about the Ferrari concept beyond the same rumours everyone else has heard - that's why I call the the 'supposed' Ferrari design! For the record, I don't think it'll happen, as the benefits are far too marginal. My comments were that the only reason that you would bother putting a hole there (pressure relief) is different to anything you've suggested.

If I had insider info about the nose, I'd be pretty dumb to sell it to anyone, because Ferrari would unleash their fearsome lawyers on me.

[manchild]

Ferrari (and Autosprint, Autosport et al ) are talking about is a SMALL duct just behind the rear edge of the front wing, designed to bleed off some of the high pressure air where it hits the bottom of the nose and extend the downforce-generating area of the low pressure under the nose forward slightly. Other than the fact it features a hole in the nose, it's a fundamentally different concept. Saying it's the same idea is like comparing a hairdryer and a jet engine.

1. Ferrari never said anything about it.

2. Autosprint talked about small duct at the tip of the nose fed trough cooling inlet.

scan of autosprint frontpage http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/5954 ... hdfco7.jpg

3. Autosport talked about design that is identical to my idea.

scan of autosport article, Piola ilustration http://195.11.99.177/mei/fnj.jpg


Bigger egg, thicker shell - smaller egg, thinner shell