Solution to the F1 "nose problem"

[FrukostScones]

I have no problem with these noses, maybe ugly but exciting. modern F1 cars also look more like insects than normal road cars with a "face"... I never found any F1 car waas looking as good as a for example a Countach or an F40 or 458 or Aventador... so I think all this "beautiful F1 cars" which is about looking menacingly and martial is BULLCRAP!

[Manoah2u]

I have no problem with these noses, maybe ugly but exciting. modern F1 cars also look more like insects than normal road cars with a "face"... I never found any F1 car waas looking as good as a for example a Countach or an F40 or 458 or Aventador... so I think all this "beautiful F1 cars" which is about looking menacingly and martial is BULLCRAP!

exactly.

[gold333]

Maybe it's a generational thing. Perhaps people who have been watching F1 for only a few years are used to ugly and therefore don't care. Others who witnessed the nature like organic shapes of the 60's or early 90's do.

There's no other reason I can think of that someone would want F1 cars (which they look at for 2 hours every two weeks) to be ugly instead of not ugly.

[gridwalker]

I've been watching since the mid 80s, but I don't really mind these cars : we will get used to them, and some people will complain when they change again ... a lot of the complaints seem to be reactions to change, rather than appraisals of the intrinsic beauty of each generation of car.

Hell, even wings were considered ugly when they were first introduced to F1. Now people complain about their proportions.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...

[gridwalker]

Ok, I have just seen the Caterham and I take back my previous statement. If the Tyrell inspired "X-Wings" were banned for being too ugly, the Caterham should be reduced to components and scattered across the globe so that it may never blacken our screens again.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse *facepalm*

[Pingguest]

Why do we need the low nose cones any way?

[Frafer]

Why do we need the low nose cones any way?

because of this

[beelsebob]

Why do we need the low nose cones any way?

Because the high noses had two unwanted effects.

1. In a T-bone crash, the nose was at the driver's head height.
2. In a rear end collision with the rear wheel, the nose was flicked up in the air, a-la Mark Webber.

Adrian has a good point though that it's possible to submarine under the crash structure now, which does not sound like a good thing at all.

[flattyre]

Adrian has a good point though that it's possible to submarine under the crash structure now, which does not sound like a good thing at all.

Rather like Piquet in Australia 1989. He crashed into the back of a slower car, because he couldn't see it in the rain. Piquet's car went underneath the other one, and he got hit in the helmet. If you ask me, I'd rather be flying through the air than have that. But, I can't recall it ever happening apart from that one crash...

[flattyre]

Did anybody else notice how Massa's car rode up the nose of Kobayashi's when they collided at the start? I got the impression that the only thing stopping it from going all the way was the step in the nose of the Caterham, or maybe the front left wheel that was still attached. Kind of worrying, actually...

EDIT: Apparently it has been noticed http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... rand-prix/

[SectorOne]

Why do we need the low nose cones any way?

because of this http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1010/5182 ... 46a5_o.jpg

Nope, it´s because of this, that´s why the nose is below the horizontal center line of the car.



The T-bone accident thing was a change for 2012, which sparked the platypus noses.
And 2011 where they set a maximum height for the cockpit/nose assembly.

[Powershift]

Why do we need the low nose cones any way?

because of this http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1010/5182 ... 46a5_o.jpg

Nope, it´s because of this, that´s why the nose is below the horizontal center line of the car.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... p6IcaIoPLC

The T-bone accident thing was a change for 2012, which sparked the platypus noses.

So maybe the nose tip edge should be the same or just lower than the axle height, and the rear crash structure the same? Should the side crash structures also be included in this height consideration?

[SectorOne]

So maybe the nose tip edge should be the same or just lower than the axle height, and the rear crash structure the same? Should the side crash structures also be included in this height consideration?

I don´t understand the question.

Basically the reason for a nose lower then the centerline of the wheel is to stop the rear wheel launching cars up in the air.
You can still have this problem but you can´t really put anything that prevents a front wheel and rear wheel from touching.