Nose cone idea

[slimjim8201]

Lengthened the profile a bit, widened the venturi, and opened up the entrance (it starts closer to the front of the nose now).

For the record, this is not my CAD model, just one I found online. If anyone has a more accurate (and modern) F1 CAD model, please let me know.

That being said, good, quantitative information can still be obtained from less than 100% accurate models. The goal of this excercise is to test the concept, not find out how much the downforce is affected to the thousandth of a Newton.

[manchild]

You could find the one on web if you knew or had luck to guess how someone named file

Just type in Google search bar "intitle:index of" filename dwg

[slimjim8201]

I <3 SW2008...

What do you think about a bridge wing to guide flow under the "in-nose-wing"?

[Conceptual]

How about you put the BMW viking wings in front of the opening and attach the bridge wing to the "horns". Then, if you get rid of the upper element completely, and just leave the beautiful slope, then make the opening from underneath where the wing element meets the nose to the top of that back slope, you would have what I was talking about earlier.. Looks VERY good BTW!

VERY bastardized, but oh well. If I had that CAD drawing however, I could make it very nice...

[Conceptual]

Do those models show where the air inlet below the nose is? I thought that was the main point of this idea of Manchild's? Lower the pressure on the underside of the nose by venting it up through the nose...

But, whatever. The models look good...lol

Chris

[slimjim8201]

Conceptual, I think you are confused between two different nose cone ideas. This thread was started to discuss the predicted nose cone "pass through" to allow the center section of the top front wing element to be used more effectively. This design I am investigating is entirely different, proposed by Manchild 4 or 5 pages back.

[Conceptual]

Conceptual, I think you are confused between two different nose cone ideas. This thread was started to discuss the predicted nose cone "pass through" to allow the center section of the top front wing element to be used more effectively. This design I am investigating is entirely different, proposed by Manchild 4 or 5 pages back.

Can you export the nose to AutoCAD and email it to me? That way I could investigate the other one then!

cknopp@gmail.com

Thanks!

[manchild]

Looks great now slimjim. I'm only not sure if that bridged wing would be of any help since it would direct flow above the small wing on top of the nose and lover pressure on its surface.

[slimjim8201]

I'm going to run an analysis without the bridge wing, but I do think it would help. I designed the bridge to deflect flow under the internal wing, not over it. It's hard to tell from the images, but the cross-sectional view shows the wing aimed right at the leading edge of the internal wing.

[FGD]

How will this built-in wing be adjusted? Why is this concept better than simply dialing in a bit more downforce via the front wing or making the front wing itself more efficient? Also... Wouldn't the turbulent airflow behind this wing disrupt air flowing into the airbox?

[manchild]

How will this built-in wing be adjusted? Why is this concept better than simply dialing in a bit more downforce via the front wing or making the front wing itself more efficient? Also... Wouldn't the turbulent airflow behind this wing disrupt air flowing into the airbox?

Well, I didn't thought of it as an adjustable aero element. I mean it could be made adjustable but having in mind that its functioning is very much dependable of the rest of the nose than I reckon that it should be unadjustable like many other aero part between front and rear wing.

I also didn't though of it as a way to increase downforce but to decrease lift generated by top of the nose.

Regarding rest of your answer all I can say is that I don't know. That's untested concept.

Remember the talk about Antonia Terzzi's vented nose that was developed while she was in Ferrari but rejected, than Williams worked on it while she was there and opted for single element nose (walrus). That was years ago and now we have rumors that Ferrari made it work. So, it is the great unknown until someone runs a CFD on it and even than success depend on specific design rather than concept itself.

[wesley123]

For the record, this is not my CAD model, just one I found online. If anyone has a more accurate (and modern) F1 CAD model, please let me know.

I have one it was originally ment for a game but it is complete to 2008 rules and has modern aerodynamics, i can send you it but in what file extension do you need it?

[slimjim8201]

Any solid model will work, but if I could have it my way, Parasolid or ACIS (sat) files would be best. They seem to be the most robust for solid modeling. Most gaming models I've seen have been in funky formats, though.

Which formats can you export?

[teecof1fan]

"manchild: Remember the talk about Antonia Terzzi's vented nose that was developed while she was in Ferrari but rejected, than Williams worked on it while she was there and opted for single element nose (walrus). That was years ago and now we have rumors that Ferrari made it work. So, it is the great unknown until someone runs a CFD on it and even than success depend on specific design rather than concept itself."

Hey manchild,

Just reminds me of a post I made a long time ago in this thread:

"teeco: Funny, this: When the FW26 Walrus-nose came out, Steve Matchett said in a broadcast that he talked to a few engineers and tech directors about the concept. Ross Brawn told Steve that Ferrari had messed around with the idea a few years before (presumably 2001-2002). So that means Ferrari toyed with it, then Williams used a version of it, and now Ferrari will use the original version 6 years after they first looked at it? Maybe it's because aero is so important now thanks to the engine freeze and SECU and all that other junk."

Sounds like both of our comments are in line with each other. Anyway, I'm glad this topic is back on the aero issue!!

[FLC]

Aldo Costa in an interview for Autosport:

Q. How do you compare the new aerodynamics with the old one?

AC: "The results are as expected. We clearly want to test it more next week, but no surprises for now."

Q. This is the configuration for Melbourne?

AC: "Yes, this the Melbourne configuration."

Q. So there won't be a new wing as it was rumoured, and a hole in the nose?

AC: "I don't know, you'll have to wait a bit more, maybe."

I think we still have something to look forward to.