BMW - dramatic nose change!

[mini696]

[quote="modbarabanmost of these 'extras' are used to direct the air to the places where they need it most (underbody, wings, cooling). And the wings aren't really located where the teams would want, but rather where the regulations permit.[/quote]...and to keep it away from the places they dont want it to go.

[Giblet]

All I can see is this.

The Viking horns for the top, and the Viking moustache blowing backwards in the wind.

It's what I see now.

[Belatti]

This is about the 4th time that an idea I've been toying with when drawing F1 cars has popped up in reality!
.

Wheel rims!
And I thought about it when I was 13 (thats 12 years ago) when I saw a Citroen car wheel rims!

[humble sabot]

Every new F1 design I see from years to now it makes me think how can that be better than this:

I dont fully understand aerodynamics (only theory I learnt in Uni) but each of those wings add drag and they are multiplied x 30!

What would happen if you design a "cleaner" car and let downforce be generated by wings? Please somebody explain me
My bigger problem is maybe I tend to see aero like a mechanical device: it has efficiency: 30 devices with 90% eff. each would be = 0.9*30= 27% efficient. Maybe it does not work like that in aero

It is possible to shape something so that it has negligible drag. These winglets and odd shapes are all there in order that the system be more efficient. They account for spurious flow.
A body moving around is going to be shedding turbulence, if you can smooth out that turbulence before it leaves the tail end of your body then your overall net drag can be lower. Most of them in and of themselves are not wings per-se and so the efficiency at creating downforce on their own is not of much interest. Drag is additive, but aerodynamic efficiency of a system is really averaged out.

[MRE]

That is a radical design. That is the risk. Either it will work or disturb all those their aerodynamic concept. I just wondering, why all the team create something like a wing at the front of their sidepods?

[manchild]

That is a radical design. That is the risk. Either it will work or disturb all those their aerodynamic concept. I just wondering, why all the team create something like a wing at the front of their sidepods?

Because of new safety regs and changed height and shape of head protectors. Instead of hitting them directly causing unnecessary drag, turbulence and disturbance of airflow over the whole mid to rear end, BMW's new nose raises the air flow just enough to overpass head protectors which is necessary in order to get more air under the rear wing and in whole coke bottle region.

I don't speak Italian but according to flow shown on video I guess that's that
http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/MediaCen ... =REDAZIONE

[manchild]

They've added even more bits on nose!

[jaho101]

Are those just cameras? Or are they really going radical on the flow modifiers? Sigh, when will teams learn that keeping it simple like Ferrari usually works out to the better.

[ackzsel]

Are those just cameras? Or are they really going radical on the flow modifiers? Sigh, when will teams learn that keeping it simple like Ferrari usually works out to the better.

Those two black extentions in front of the wings are camera's (or dummies). They should have nothing to do with the new wings (allthough they are quite close to each other). FIA regs put them there.

[modbaraban]

They copied the FW30 idea of mounting cameras on some 'wingy' extensions and not directly to the nosecone.

[Conceptual]

That is a radical design. That is the risk. Either it will work or disturb all those their aerodynamic concept. I just wondering, why all the team create something like a wing at the front of their sidepods?

Because of new safety regs and changed height and shape of head protectors. Instead of hitting them directly causing unnecessary drag, turbulence and disturbance of airflow over the whole mid to rear end, BMW's new nose raises the air flow just enough to overpass head protectors which is necessary in order to get more air under the rear wing and in whole coke bottle region.

I don't speak Italian but according to flow shown on video I guess that's that
http://mediacenter.gazzetta.it/MediaCen ... =REDAZIONE

The wing in that video looks much different and more aggressive than the actual one mounted on the car. The pic of the actual car looks like to might actually have a diffusor effect compounding the air redirecting.

Who knows? Its great to see "outside-the-Ferrari-box" stuff however. Innovation of any sort in F1 is what keeps me watching. To be honest, I can care less who wins. I am much more interested in the innovation and technology than the WCC or the WDC.

Chris

[mini696]

[quote="ConceptualWho knows? Its great to see "outside-the-Ferrari-box" stuff however. Innovation of any sort in F1 is what keeps me watching. To be honest, I can care less who wins. I am much more interested in the innovation and technology than the WCC or the WDC.

Chris[/quote]F1 is about the technology, not the racing... A lot of the bigwigs always say, if you want to see "motor racing" you have Nascar, Indy, GP2, any spec series really... If you want to see "technology racing" watch F1.

[donskar]

[quote="ConceptualWho knows? Its great to see "outside-the-Ferrari-box" stuff however. Innovation of any sort in F1 is what keeps me watching. To be honest, I can care less who wins. I am much more interested in the innovation and technology than the WCC or the WDC.

Chris

F1 is about the technology, not the racing... A lot of the bigwigs always say, if you want to see "motor racing" you have Nascar, Indy, GP2, any spec series really... If you want to see "technology racing" watch F1.[/quote]

Can't come to grips with these quotes. I have a couple years of university Mechanical Engineering background and many years of hands-on wrenching/go-fering on everything from top fuel dragsters to my modified 200SX, so I appreciate and enjoy 100% of the technical element (and understand about 25% of it!) but I fear for F1's long-term health in today's commercial climate if we must depend on large audiences to tune in to watch "technology racing." Like it or not, the sport as we know it will change radically if audiences drop. And I don't think audiences will stay at high levels in the long term if we expect them to watch a competition between wings and pneumatic valve springs.

I think the "bigwigs" referred to are rationalizing. Yes, those of us who read and contribute to forums like this one enjoy the technical aspects of auto racing, but 9-figure F1 budgets are meant to attract and impress the masses. And the masses don't know a polar moment of inertia from a polar bear - and care less. They want spectacle and HUMAN competition. We appreciate the contributions of Newey, Coughlin, Baldiserri, Brawn and their ilk, but they and their contributions are invisible to the public. They want to see Kimi and Hamilton going wheel to wheel and they don't care if those wheels are pressed steel or forged iridium.

IMHO, the sport we love would be in better long-term health (in terms of continuing sponsor financial support) by returning to earlier decades when cars were simpler and there were many more names and personalities behind the wheel. Who do have now who can compare with James Hunt, Gilles Villeneuve, Dan Gurney, Graham Hill, etc? (BUT I do NOT want to see the lack of safety that was rampant in that earlier era.)