Quick question regarding the aero benefits of high vs noses

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
WaikeCU
14
Joined: 14 May 2014, 00:03

Re: Quick question regarding the aero benefits of high vs no

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:
The last car to win a race with a really low nose was the '94 Williams FW16
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/wp-co ... elaide.jpg
Nice rant! No disrespect, but the last car to win a race with a really low nose was this thing:

Image

But other than that, +1 =D>

riff_raff
riff_raff
132
Joined: 24 Dec 2004, 10:18

Re: Quick question regarding the aero benefits of high vs no

Post

Who needs a high nose when you can have a high front wing?

Image
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Quick question regarding the aero benefits of high vs no

Post

motorloon1993 wrote:The cars of the pre-2009 era were designed with low noses and although I understand the wings and various other aero restrictions that effect the whole design of the car were completely different, I am curious as to why teams designed the noses as high as possible around the 2010-2013 era as apposed to the low noses of pre-2009?

If the teams had to design under the 2008 regulations now would the cars have high noses or low?
The biggest reason is a shift in peak aero balance.

Like Ciro so well-wordely told, "high" noses or rather the concept behind it has existed long before 2009. Raising the nose ultimately makes the diffuser work better, creating more rear downforce.

The main thing you need to understand is that your front and rear aero needs to be roughly in balance, else your car will excessively either oversteer or understeer. A high nose is good to gain rear downforce, but is useless when you can't get the front create equal levels of downforce.

Throughout the 90's and 2000's, regulation changed several times, shifting aero balance more to the back one time, an other time back more to the front, etc.

That's what we saw to develop after 2004; in 2005 several rule changes reduced diffuser volume, brought the rear wing forward and raised the front wing. While the former 2 changes do reduce rear downforce, the latter rule change dramatically reduced front downforce. So team were in shortage of front downforce. So they lowered the noses again (but not too low in order to have the middle section of the FW produce optimal downforce) to benefit of the lower CoG.

In 2009, diffuser again got reduced in size while the front wing got lowered to the ground while keeping around the same or even slightly more downforce producing surface. Aero balance shifted back to the front. Newey was the first to notice that the nose needed to be extremely high in order to get max air voiume underneath the nose. All others followed, and ultimately we got all teams pushing and flattening their noses up to the max height.
#AeroFrodo

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Quick question regarding the aero benefits of high vs no

Post

WaikeCU wrote:
Ciro Pabón wrote:
The last car to win a race with a really low nose was the '94 Williams FW16
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/wp-co ... elaide.jpg
Nice rant! No disrespect, but the last car to win a race with a really low nose was this thing:

http://literalf1.com/wp-content/uploads ... 4_PHC.jpeg

But other than that, +1 =D>
The Williams was the last one to not feature the raised Nose. The Ferrari as pictured there did have a raised nose, however it was quite thin and featured a single wing pillar.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

OO7
OO7
171
Joined: 06 Apr 2010, 17:49

Re: Quick question regarding the aero benefits of high vs no

Post

The last low nosed F1 car to win a race was the Ferrari 412 T2 of Jean Alesi at the 1995 Canadian GP:
Image

User avatar
Powerslide
10
Joined: 12 Feb 2006, 08:19
Location: Land Below The Wind

Re: Quick question regarding the aero benefits of high vs no

Post

the front wing gets clean air so its pretty effective to get downforce while the rear usually gets turbulent air so to breath the rear, the front is compromised, striking a balance. raised nose aerodynamics is usually associated with passaging more air to improve rear diffuser but with barge boards and all the other aero fins, it also looks as if aero engineers are trying to clear air away from the floor as well
speed