Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[Artur Craft]

To go back to the complete idea of 'higher nose' design. Everybody is always saying: higher nose -> more air -> more air to the back -> more possibilities to create rear downforce. I never really got this, there must be an 'easy' path for that air to go to the back. The best result would be without a sidepod. The other opposite is with a sidepod without undercut, forcing all the air into the almost 'free' stream next to the car. So the more overall undercut, the more air you can take from the front to the back. In that way I think the most performance can be gained from a larger undercut, and not from another nose.

Or am I missing something?

Somehow, a myth of higher nose being a evolution in terms of aerodynamics spread in the internet. People often say "high nose is better because it feeds more air to the diffuser" or "high nose gives more downforce" or etc, in reality, high noses only exist because of a series of FIA regulations which:
_mandate the cars to run with too much ride height(which takes away much of the diffuser efficiency/underbody low pressure)
_allow very small diffusers
_and cars only have 75cm of wingspan on the rear wing

The front wing is very big and low positioned and, therefore, naturally generates more than enough downforce to balance the rear's downforce. Teams must focus on increasing rear downforce and that kind of "mandate" teams to have as higher nose as possible to send as much air as possible throw => splitter/turning vanes, and between the bargeboards => sidepod undercut => back of the car.

That way, you feed the rear with lot's of the air to create more the downforce on the beam wing(which helps the diffuser) and on the diffuser's upper gurney. This is also combined with very tight packaging to have clean air reaching the rear downforce generators.

As Newey already said, I don't know why teams used low noses after regulation change(BrawnGP, Mclaren....) because the balance of downforce is way too much on the front, right now, and they need to route air, coming from the front, to better maximize rear downforce.

Yes you are, under floor flow that is fed by everything ahead of and via the Bib Splitter. The flow underneath is the daddy here and getting that flow extraced as quick as possible through the diffuser is the golden egg. The flow over the floor and around the sidepod is trying to help suck the under floor flow out. High nose feeds the bib splitter and under floor with a higher volume of less turbulent air.

Everything seems right apart from the bold part. The purpose of higher noses is not the send more air under the floor.

[seinfeld]

Finally these guys are using the side pods dirty air for a little more aero on the rear, you can see it angling towards the diffuser now

[ringo]

How can you confidently so much without having investigated it?
High noses are better aerodynamically, not because of regulations.

It's not only about side flow either and flow to the back. What about the middle of the car?
It's something that has to be seen to be fully understood.

[Forza]

[Pierce89]

How can you confidently so much without having investigated it?
High noses are better aerodynamically, not because of regulations.

It's not only about side flow either and flow to the back. What about the middle of the car?
It's something that has to be seen to be fully understood.

SHHH! You might offend one of our armchair aerodynamicists. I'm working on a double major in Mech. Engineering and Aeronautics,yet, I still get "educated" regularly in aerodynamics by them.

[myurr]

How can you confidently so much without having investigated it?
High noses are better aerodynamically, not because of regulations.

It's not only about side flow either and flow to the back. What about the middle of the car?
It's something that has to be seen to be fully understood.

SHHH! You might offend one of our armchair aerodynamicists. I'm working on a double major in Mech. Engineering and Aeronautics,yet, I still get "educated" regularly in aerodynamics by them.

Is it the case though that a high nose is aerodynamically better in all situations? In previous years we've seen many variants in nose height, with some teams changing back and forth over the years. Newey himself has in the past favoured a lower nose when others were going with a high nose.

I'm not an aerodynamicists by any stretch of the imagination but isn't the preference between a high or low nose more to do with the balance you want to get between front and rear downforce, rather than automatically always being the right answer. I would have guessed that the current trend is more that front wings are a lot more efficient these days so getting air to the rear is more desirable. Happy to be shown otherwise.

[Nando]

Mclaren and Ferrari has probably the most ridiculous coke bottles i´ve seen. If we discount the bulge then these are anorectic compared to Red Bull´s from last year or say this year with the suspension-exhaust layout.

the start out thinner near the driver as well, much thinner as i believe RBR had their sidepod almost touch the edge of the floor.

[LotusF1]

How can you confidently so much without having investigated it?
High noses are better aerodynamically, not because of regulations.

It's not only about side flow either and flow to the back. What about the middle of the car?
It's something that has to be seen to be fully understood.

high noses vs low noses create lift not downforce...............high noses are implied for other reasons...

[Jef Patat]

Mclaren and Ferrari has probably the most ridiculous coke bottles i´ve seen. If we discount the bulge then these are anorectic compared to Red Bull´s from last year or say this year with the suspension-exhaust layout.

the start out thinner near the driver as well, much thinner as i believe RBR had their sidepod almost touch the edge of the floor.

Care to explain why that would be a bad thing? I only see advantages in these designs, i.e. more air to the rear. Look how hard RB are trying to do the same thing with tunnels in that area because of their different Sauber exhaust solution.

[Nando]

Mclaren and Ferrari has probably the most ridiculous coke bottles i´ve seen. If we discount the bulge then these are anorectic compared to Red Bull´s from last year or say this year with the suspension-exhaust layout.

the start out thinner near the driver as well, much thinner as i believe RBR had their sidepod almost touch the edge of the floor.

Care to explain why that would be a bad thing? I only see advantages in these designs, i.e. more air to the rear. Look how hard RB are trying to do the same thing with tunnels in that area because of their different Sauber exhaust solution.

Care to explain how you turned all that into a bad thing?

I think it´s incredible to see because RBR had a ridiculous coke bottle themselves.

[Jef Patat]

Mclaren and Ferrari has probably the most ridiculous coke bottles i´ve seen. If we discount the bulge then these are anorectic compared to Red Bull´s from last year or say this year with the suspension-exhaust layout.

the start out thinner near the driver as well, much thinner as i believe RBR had their sidepod almost touch the edge of the floor.

Care to explain why that would be a bad thing? I only see advantages in these designs, i.e. more air to the rear. Look how hard RB are trying to do the same thing with tunnels in that area because of their different Sauber exhaust solution.

Care to explain how you turned all that into a bad thing?

I think it´s incredible to see because RBR had a ridiculous coke bottle themselves.

Sorry, english is not my native language. Is ridiculous meaning good or bad to you? My dictionary says: ridiculous = extremely silly or unreasonable, so it can always be ridiculously good or ridiculously bad, without 'good' or 'bad' your post is confusing to me, so I asked for a clarification.

[turbof1]

How can you confidently so much without having investigated it?
High noses are better aerodynamically, not because of regulations.

It's not only about side flow either and flow to the back. What about the middle of the car?
It's something that has to be seen to be fully understood.

high noses vs low noses create lift not downforce...............high noses are implied for other reasons...

high noses themselves of course don't create downforce, but they are a method of getting more air to the diffuser. If there were no regulations, high noses would be useless b/c everybody would be driving ground effect and thus no air at all would be traveling beneath the car.

[PlatinumZealot]

Not just the diffuser. The diffuser is not the be all and end all of all things aero.
What about the front splitter?
The bargeboards?
The undercuts?

High nose is better, because you're real ground effect start at the splitter. What modern F1 cars do is have the center of pressure in the middle near the driver. So that is why the floor is cut back so much to where it is now in modern F1. For aerodynamic intents and purposes nose is only there to hold the front wheels and the front wing to the car and guide the air around. You don't want it to disturb before it reaches the splitter the air and high noses disturb less air than low noses. To illustrate Ferrari and redBull have huge fences under the nose to keep the air nice and clean before it reaches the splitter/bargeboard area.

[turbof1]

Not just the diffuser. The diffuser is not the be all and end all of all things aero.
What about the front splitter?
The bargeboards?
The undercuts?

High nose is better, because you're real ground effect start at the splitter. What modern F1 cars do is have the center of pressure in the middle near the driver. So that is why the floor is cut back so much to where it is now in modern F1. For aerodynamic intents and purposes nose is only there to hold the front wheels and the front wing to the car and guide the air around. You don't want it to disturb before it reaches the splitter the air and high noses disturb less air than low noses. To illustrate Ferrari and redBull have huge fences under the nose to keep the air nice and clean before it reaches the splitter/bargeboard area.

When speaking about modern f1 cars, you are absolutely right. However I think that when there are no rules, you want to have the whole car act as a giant wing, so then it would be preferable to keep the nose as low as possible. Just saying that IMO the regulations created this raised nose.

What I do find strange though is that this trend of raised noses is only a few years old. They weren't there before 2009. Perhaps teams had the problem flipped around, back then? More then enough potentional downforce at the back but very limited at creating at the back?

[QLDriver]

Remember, in 2008 and earlier, there were the large diffusers and big rear wings. 2009 brought the double diffuser. 2010-2011 brought the exhaust blown diffuser (with increasing amounts of of throttle blowing). There really does seem to have been a progressive reduction in rear downforce that hasn't been matched by front downforce reductions.