2014 Design

[speedsense]

Scarbs tweeted this link from COTA today..

teams are concerned about ugly "hook" nose to meet reg's for 2014 and crash tests..

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111262

[Huntresa]

Scarbs tweeted this link from COTA today..

teams are concerned about ugly "hook" nose to meet reg's for 2014 and crash tests..

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111262

Posted alrdy on page 37 and then discussed in lenght.

[Forza]

Definitely we will see different interpretations. Here is another good comparison of what is allowed inside the "box" imposed by 2014 regulations.

[theWPTformula]

does anyone know if the Walrus nose would be legal under the 2014 regs? I've made a sketch here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18598395@N06/10836233265/

Unfortunately no walrus noses next year. The tip of the nose must have an area of 9000m^2 when viewed from the front, which is about the same as a 53mm radius circle, so very small. This thin section then has to travel backwards and finish 250mm up from the reference plane, the same height as the bottom of the front bulkhead. Then the design can be whatever they please but it won't look pretty.

[wesley123]

Since we are talking about the Walrus nose. Would a nose design like the one on the Audi R15+ conform to the regulations?

[trinidefender]

does anyone know if the Walrus nose would be legal under the 2014 regs? I've made a sketch here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18598395@N06/10836233265/

Unfortunately no walrus noses next year. The tip of the nose must have an area of 9000m^2 when viewed from the front, which is about the same as a 53mm radius circle, so very small. This thin section then has to travel backwards and finish 250mm up from the reference plane, the same height as the bottom of the front bulkhead. Then the design can be whatever they please but it won't look pretty.

Thought that rule was simply for minimum area. With the outcome being many teams may wish to have a larger nose section at that point for some reason or the other. Is this not the case?

[theWPTformula]

Thought that rule was simply for minimum area. With the outcome being many teams may wish to have a larger nose section at that point for some reason or the other. Is this not the case?

Been reading 15.4 in the technical regulations and you are correct in saying it must be more than 9000mm² but that is after the first 50mm of the nose tip. I am going to keep reading because I think that I've misread something somewhere along the line. Here's the link for those who would like to contribute.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 7.2013.pdf

[theWPTformula]

OK, I think I understand why we might see some ugly noses next season...

The cross section must have a minimum cross sectional (when viewed from above) of 9000mm^2, from 50mm behind the nose to 250mm above the reference plane.

After re-reading ScarbsF1's article on Autosport, he is suggesting that the teams will want to keep this section of bodywork at a minimum (ie 9000mm^2) to let more airflow below the car. Effectively this divides the nose up into two sections, allowing teams to replicate high nose designs but with the thin nose section attached due to regulation.

Therefore nose designs could still be elegant, but walrus designs still are not allowed as it states that the frontal portion of the wing must be a single cross section and the tip must lie 750mm forward of the front wheel centreline.

I'll try and get an image up...

[theWPTformula]

Here's a quote from my 2014 front wing article that I have recently revised:

"From a point 50mm behind the tip of the nose, a cross sectional area of at least 9000mm² must run up to a point 250mm above the reference plane, which is in line with the base of the front bulkhead. To put this into context, this area is about the size of a 53mm radius circle... tiny!

Journalists have recently reported that engineers are worried about the look of these designs, with Craig Scarborough recently drawing his interpretation of next year's noses on autosport.com.

The reason why teams may choose to design a nose this way is to feed more airflow beneath the chassis and enhance the aerodynamic performance of the underfloor. We have seen over the past few years that raising the nose as high as possible generates more downforce at the rear of the car as a greater volume of airflow is travelling beneath the chassis, into the floor area below and extracting performance from the diffuser.

After this mandatory section of bodywork, the teams can then do whatever they want with the nose up until it meets the front bulkhead line. This means that the narrow section could feed into a very wide area of bodywork as shown in the drawing in the article mentioned above.

This effectively replicates a high nose but with a thin section added to the front, as this is mandatory. The thin design opens up space for airflow to pass beneath and below the chassis which is exactly the same process that happens with the current generation of noses.

Aerodynamically teams will want to find the best solution but it is not that simple. Passing the crash tests will be extremely difficult as the narrow section feeds into a much thicker section just before the front bulkhead. Ultimately then you would have to expect the top teams to produce the tidiest versions: these teams will have more money to spend on varying carbon fibre layups and make the best compromise between performance and function (ie passing the crash test).

We could still see some elegant designs as the regulations do allow for wide noses at the tip. This is unlikely, however, as they will probably want to extract more performance from the underside of the car."

That is how I have deciphered the regulations but let me know what your opinions are.

[wuzak]

So, we could see designs like the old McLarens?



I had thought these were not possible, due to nose width regulations. But with the drawing of Craig Scarborough's, these must be possible.

[theWPTformula]

So, we could see designs like the old McLarens?

http://worldcarslist.com/images/mclaren ... -17-06.jpg

I had thought these were not possible, due to nose width regulations. But with the drawing of Craig Scarborough's, these must be possible.

Indeed I thought this design would not be allowed, but I've read and re-read the regulations so many times and I think this would be allowed...

[Huntresa]

But the pointy nose has been a suggestion in this thread from like page 10 or something, the widht of the nose isnt that large in the regs.

[theWPTformula]

But the pointy nose has been a suggestion in this thread from like page 10 or something, the widht of the nose isnt that large in the regs.

Perhaps some of us (including myself) have been misinterpreting the regulations. The minimum width is very small but the maximum width can be as large as the diameter of the front bulkhead.

The noses will probably look ugly because all the teams will want to have the smallest possible nose to gain an aerodynamic advantage.

[Huntresa]

But the pointy nose has been a suggestion in this thread from like page 10 or something, the widht of the nose isnt that large in the regs.

Perhaps some of us (including myself) have been misinterpreting the regulations. The minimum width is very small but the maximum width can be as large as the diameter of the front bulkhead.

The noses will probably look ugly because all the teams will want to have the smallest possible nose to gain an aerodynamic advantage.

Exactly.

[theWPTformula]

So now we're all back at square one... Brilliant.