Those had a very different function, having both a low CoG and being lighter alltogether. Back then the diffuser didn't need to have so much airflow to it due front downforce being the limiting factor. Such a design would still hamper air to reach the underside of the floor. Airflow coming the side will not get guided to the underside of the nose.Diesel wrote:So what is it in the regulations that's preventing them for just having nose cones like the Renault R25 or the McLaren MP4-21 ?
Like this...
http://exoticcars66.files.wordpress.com ... celona.jpg
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/l ... -R25_1.jpg
How foolish from the FIA to neglect a top/bottom view to have a continueing mandated nose. Such a design was relative easy to predict. They can't change it now anymore, so we are effectively stuck with such designs. Perhaps the only hope is that it doesn't past the crash tests.
. I merely simplified it; early 2000's when they were allowed to run front wings much closer to the ground, generating much more front downforce, noses were alot higher then afterwards, even though diffusers also were 66% larger then ones starting from 2005. Raising or lowering the nose is a structural solution since a couple of decades. It is true a larger diffuser and/or a higher nose adds downforce across the whole floor, but it still generates the most at the back, but there are several elements you have to take into account: aero balance, L/D and CoG are the most important ones. A higher nose would have given extra downforce along the whole car, but would also necessated more front downforce (keeping aero balance in check). These front wings were already heavily developed, and the best solution to add more would have been either to add extra elements, a higher AoA or both, which would decrease the L/D coefficient. Finally, a higher nose raises the CoG, something that has to be offset by advantages you get out of the extra L/D and if your aero balance remains, well, balanced.
