2014 Design

[slimfitcasual]

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

Assuming it passes crash tests correct?

[turbof1]

They probably will; they already get longitudinal flat noses through; latitudinal flat noses shouldn't be that much more a problem.

[Kiril Varbanov]

Now that Piola sent out his render, I think I'm coming late to the party, but it was sitting the draft folder for quite some time:
F1 2014 rules illustrated.

The model is done by Will Tyson and I just followed the trendy yellow Enjoy, like and comment.

[aleks_ader]

They probably will; they already get longitudinal flat noses through; latitudinal flat noses shouldn't be that much more a problem.

Yes that i also considered. It is AERO vs. Structural part. How team will work out we will see soon than later.

[gray41]

I was thinking the new noses could have a slight upward flick to them like the GP3 design.



Obviously within the box allowed, could we see something like this from anyone?

[theWPTformula]

I was thinking the new noses could have a slight upward flick to them like the GP3 design.

http://andyyoungf1.files.wordpress.com/ ... am_gp3.jpg

Obviously within the box allowed, could we see something like this from anyone?

Yes, as long as the cross section stays the same up to 250mm above the reference plane. ie the bottom has to flick up with it.

[FW17]

Since vanity panels are allowed and scarbs illustration is also allowed, what is stopping the nose cone from looking like this?


Light green vanity panel
Dark green splitter

[Thunder]

Why would you do that? I don't see the benefit of that Solution.

Edit: I hope this will be the most represented Design:

[Lycoming]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZmspvyCIAAtT5g.png

Since vanity panels are allowed and scarbs illustration is also allowed, what is stopping the nose cone from looking like this?
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj5 ... 9d5364.jpg

Light green vanity panel
Dark green splitter

Probably the fact that it provides no benefit. Think first about why they want a high nose. Hint: It has to do with the underside, not the top side.

[turbof1]

The idea is interesting.

If properly modelled, a vanity panel could scope under air that would otherwise travel over the nose and guide it underneath it. It wouldn't be a big gain, but it would atleast be something.

[Holm86]

As far as I know vanity panels may have no aerodynamic function what so ever.

[variante]

As far as I know vanity panels may have no aerodynamic function what so ever.

Actually, they have an aerodynamic function only (if you take away aesthetics)

Since vanity panels are allowed and scarbs illustration is also allowed, what is stopping the nose cone from looking like this?

It'll be interesting to see what shapes the teams will come out with, and some of them may actually choose an extreme solution like yours. However there are a few limitations to that: nose height limitations (see the scheme at page 28), which apply to vanity panels as well, and some more drag to deal with, for instance.

[turbof1]

As far as I know vanity panels may have no aerodynamic function what so ever.

Actually, they have an aerodynamic function only (if you take away aesthetics)

Since vanity panels are allowed and scarbs illustration is also allowed, what is stopping the nose cone from looking like this?

It'll be interesting to see what shapes the teams will come out with, and some of them may actually choose an extreme solution like yours. However there are a few limitations to that: nose height limitations (see the scheme at page 28), which apply to vanity panels as well, and some more drag to deal with, for instance.

It's actually the front bulkhead that applies to the height of the vanity panel.

[Holm86]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEza9TSq4IY[/youtube]

Some interesting talks. But go to 15:15 for the more 2014 relevant talk.

[FW17]

The image sketched is not very clear but it was supposed to have the idea of this