2014 Design

[trinidefender]

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

Well hopefully we will be able to figure out the the most common nose shape through process of elimination.

I do predict however that at the start of the season you will see a few outlandish nose designs, some of which may change as the season progresses to a point at the end of the year where you will see largely 2 or 3 different variations of a basic nose design.

[variante]

I've run some fast CFD analysis of the different kind of nosecones we've been talking about, plus one.

(Please, note that none of the model had their edges rounded; it shouldn't influence much the result, though.
Also, keep in mind that these results are nothing more than indicative, not only because of symulation's accuracy, but also beacause each kind of nose can be tuned to create more downforce or less drag, depending on what is needed)

30m/s


Blanchimont nose:
drag: 42N; DF: 8N; Efficiency: 0.19
→ allows the greatest amount of air to reach the rear elements of the car.
→ worst efficiency and lowest DF.

Narrow Tip nose:
drag: 40N; DF: 11N; Efficiency: 0.28
→ has got the lowest drag (by a small percentage).
→ allows a good amount of undisturbed air to go underneath the car.
→ McLaren and Renault used it back then for the simple reason that it didn't interfere much with the production of downforce by the front wing; today's wing are different, so...

Platypus nose:
drag: 56N; DF: 77N; Efficiency: 1.38
→ the best if are needed loads of front downforce: the nose tip is so low and wide that ground effect gets very noticeable.
→ works as snowplough, so the air quality left behind is awful.
→ highest drag of the lot.

Variante nose (...call it as you wish):
drag: 43N, DF: 42N; Efficiency: 0.98
→ works together with the mandatory wing, thus creating something like a 2 elements wing.
→ drives a decent amount of air underneath.


Now, i've got to choose one for the Khamsin aero challenge. Which one?

[trinidefender]

I've run some fast CFD analysis of the different kind of nosecones we've been talking about, plus one.

(Please, note that none of the model had their edges rounded; it shouldn't influence much the result, though.
Also, keep in mind that these results are nothing more than indicative, not only because of symulation's accuracy, but also beacause each kind of nose can be tuned to create more downforce or less drag, depending on what is needed)

30m/s
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3549/3uem.png

Blanchimont nose:
drag: 42N; DF: 8N; Efficiency: 0.19
→ allows the greatest amount of air to reach the rear elements of the car.
→ worst efficiency and lowest DF.

Narrow Tip nose:
drag: 40N; DF: 11N; Efficiency: 0.28
→ has got the lowest drag (by a small percentage).
→ allows a good amount of undisturbed air to go underneath the car.
→ McLaren and Renault used it back then for the simple reason that it didn't interfere much with the production of downforce by the front wing; today's wing are different, so...

Platypus nose:
drag: 56N; DF: 77N; Efficiency: 1.38
→ the best if are needed loads of front downforce: the nose tip is so low and wide that ground effect gets very noticeable.
→ works as snowplough, so the air quality left behind is awful.
→ highest drag of the lot.

Variante nose (...call it as you wish):
drag: 43N, DF: 42N; Efficiency: 0.98
→ works together with the mandatory wing, thus creating something like a 2 elements wing.
→ drives a decent amount of air underneath.


Now, i've got to choose one for the Khamsin aero challenge. Which one?

Can you create a design similar to the top design except have it taper off where the narrow part reaches the wide part. Starting from the back it is the same width, as you move forward it tapers inwards to the narrow section the continues on forward at that width?

[techF1LES]

Teaser on how sidepods become much bigger in 2014, mainly because of new standard crash structure and radiators.

via @tgruener/Auto Motor und Sport

[aleks_ader]

depending on what is needed)

Now, i've got to choose one for the Khamsin aero challenge. Which one?

Look your own words above!

Choose that one which goes together with your philosophy of the back of the car (vortex, bargeboard, sidepods, cooling outlets, diffuzor, tire skiert, FW). It is different if you want bullet car on the straight and high speed corners or total brutal downforce etc. Do some sim and calcs and make some number witch you want achieve. That will be enough to make some really usefull engineering practice. That is the way how i will do, but rest is on you. I dont want ruin your the satisfaction and do decisions. Choose what you want? That is.

[Thunder]

That comparsion would be good if the 2013 Side (Right Side) would actually be complete......

[variante]

Can you create a design similar to the top design except have it taper off where the narrow part reaches the wide part. Starting from the back it is the same width, as you move forward it tapers inwards to the narrow section the continues on forward at that width?

Like this one?

In this case numbers don't change much from the standard shape:
Drag: 43N; DF: 8N (we're talking about decimals)
But again, this nose may show its actual qualities only interacting with the rear of the car.


@aleks_ader
Yeah, wise words
The logical solution would be testing every part together with the whole car, but it would take ages for an accurate run.
Let's start saying that i don't see any team using the platypus nose...

[FW17]

Can you create a design similar to the top design except have it taper off where the narrow part reaches the wide part. Starting from the back it is the same width, as you move forward it tapers inwards to the narrow section the continues on forward at that width?

Like this one?
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1245/8rdc.png
In this case numbers don't change much from the standard shape:
Drag: 43N; DF: 8N (we're talking about decimals)
But again, this nose may show its actual qualities only interacting with the rear of the car.


@aleks_ader
Yeah, wise words
The logical solution would be testing every part together with the whole car, but it would take ages for an accurate run.
Let's start saying that i don't see any team using the platypus nose...

1) The cockpit monocoque has a square or a rectangular section defined with a certain radius for the edges, does this extend to the nose cone?

2) The nose tip has a minimum radius (to prevent pointed tip) what is it? will this not apply for the second nose tip also?

3) Is a secondary nose tip allowed?

[hardingfv32]

Radiuses or pointed nose tips, which is better? In this regard, why do most subsonic aircraft leading edges have radiuses?

Brian

[variante]

1) The cockpit monocoque has a square or a rectangular section defined with a certain radius for the edges, does this extend to the nose cone?

2) The nose tip has a minimum radius (to prevent pointed tip) what is it? will this not apply for the second nose tip also?

3) Is a secondary nose tip allowed?

1) that's right, it extends to the nosecone. But, as stated in the previous post of mine, for the moment i'm not including every single detail since they don't infuence considerably the CFD tests, which are just indicative.

2) the minimum radius is 5mm for everything more than 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line (see article 3.4.2). For some area there are other limitations, if i remember correctly.

3) technically, there's just one nose tip.

Radiuses or pointed nose tips, which is better? In this regard, why do most subsonic aircraft leading edges have radiuses?

Brian

Airplanes' aerodynamics are more complex than they seem, we would need a brand new discussion. Why don't you open a new thread?

Fast answer about rounded leading edges for subsonic velocities (which also deserves a new thread): the airflow often changes direction, and the leading edge has to gently follow any of them in order to guarantee to the following elements the best airflow possible.

[DaveW]

....In this regard, why do most subsonic aircraft leading edges have radiuses?

Joukowsky, perhaps (apologies variante).

[trinidefender]

Can you create a design similar to the top design except have it taper off where the narrow part reaches the wide part. Starting from the back it is the same width, as you move forward it tapers inwards to the narrow section the continues on forward at that width?

Like this one?
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1245/8rdc.png
In this case numbers don't change much from the standard shape:
Drag: 43N; DF: 8N (we're talking about decimals)
But again, this nose may show its actual qualities only interacting with the rear of the car.


@aleks_ader
Yeah, wise words
The logical solution would be testing every part together with the whole car, but it would take ages for an accurate run.
Let's start saying that i don't see any team using the platypus nose...

I was actually referring to the horizontal plane. Looking from above and starting from behind the nose starts off wide as it moves forward. Then makes a 90 degree turn inward then turns 90 degrees forward again. I was asking if you can produce a design such that it starts wide at the back of the nose then tapers inwards to where the 90 degree bends are and meets the thin part of the nose flush

[aleks_ader]

I was actually referring to the horizontal plane. Looking from above and starting from behind the nose starts off wide as it moves forward. Then makes a 90 degree turn inward then turns 90 degrees forward again. I was asking if you can produce a design such that it starts wide at the back of the nose then tapers inwards to where the 90 degree bends are and meets the thin part of the nose flush

could quick sketch (normal tehnicals views; above, sideview etc.). Just draw on paper and take pic it takes just 5 min.... I couldnt imagine what exactly you mean?

[Thunder]

G. Piolas preview of the 2014 Cars.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 13296.html

But the Text states that the Nose will bei much thinner than on the Pictures / Video.

[aleks_ader]

G. Piolas preview of the 2014 Cars.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 13296.html

But the Text states that the Nose will bei much thinner than on the Pictures / Video.

I think it goes for minimum crosssection. But team will opt very narow minimalistic version beacuse aero benefits...