Bulkhead/nose/chassis idea - Updated

[manchild]

My out-loud visual thinking of way to meet FIA bulkhead size regulations, but to avoid extremely long noses, make car as short as possible while maintain raised nose benefits.

The front wing (not shown on the pics) wouldn't be fitted with vertical pillars, but horizontally attached to lower plate of the nose (as front extension of the nose).

[mx_tifoso]

How much shorter would the chassis need to be in order to take advantage of this design? And would it be worth it overall??

Great stuff as always Manchild, I hope you start getting credit for the ideas you come up with and get used by teams.

[bhall]

I like the lateral thinking, but wonder if it would pass a crash test.

[WhiteBlue]

I like the lateral thinking, but wonder if it would pass a crash test.

Unlikely in the present shape. But it could be improved by adding a "roof". Nevertheless one disadvantage compared to a conventional nose would be the weight necessary to pass the crash test. The off centre placement of the nose creates a destructive momentum which requires massive reinforcements. Hence my fear for much more weight.

[piast9]

I can't find that in the regulations right now but would it be legal? 2008 Ferrari hollow nosecone was banned.

[Bazza]

Interesting idea. However, you still have to attach the wheels and suspension somewhere, as well as the power steering, etc. And avoid throwing a vortex off the 'exit duct' out the bottom and sides that could end up anywhere (stick the cameras around here and try and send said vortex under the floor?)

However, I think this might just be thrown off by the same rule than killed Ferrari's nose vents (than got air from under the nose behind the front wing and sent it at the driver's face). UNLESS you can convince people that it's just one of those small vents on the stagnation point of every other car. Except several hundred times bigger, of course.


Also you'd need a fairly long wheelbase and tub assembly to do it, otherwise the driver's feet would have to be too far back. In effect the back end of this tub thing would be where the tub usually goes.

[gridwalker]

How does the FIA define a bulkhead?

Asking google to define "bulkhead" brings up this :

bulk·head/ˈbəlkˌhed/
Noun:
A dividing wall or barrier between compartments in a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle.

The area that you denote as a bulkhead does not include a wall between compartments, as you have designed it specifically to allow a flow through the designated area. Using the definition quoted above, I believe that the FIA would disallow this idea.

If the regulations define "bulkhead" differently, I would be interested to see the exact wording. I have also been trying to find the regulation that bans the 2008-style hole through the nosecone, but cannot find the exact wording. Does anyone have the text available?

[scarbs]

Its an interesting take on the regulations, but I think it will fall foul of the rule calling for a single closed section for the nose area. This was introduced to prevent 2008 Ferrari nose hole solutions being used.

[manchild]

Thank you all for the compliments and observations.

My main motive was to explore possibility of fundamental bulkhead redesign while keeping it in compliance with FIA regulations.

Crash test is what worries me too, the best I could thought of would be adding third longitudinal central structure, a bit thicker than ones on the sides.

When it matters chassis packaging, the steering rack would be at front, with braking cylinders and braking fluid canisters behind it - accessible trough usual apertures for suspension adjustment.

Someone mentioned suspension too. It would require low position of suspension arms, just like on 80s cars, and two struts for lower arms rear attach point. It would still be push-rod system though, but with dampers laying flat as on early 90s cars.

I know it would requires a bunch of redesign, but it is just an idea, not a task for anyone.

BTW, if noses can't have any openings since 2009, does it also mean that there can't be even the driver cooling opening? If it however can be, than what is the difference in what equals tubular nose in both cases, apart from diameter of entry and exit?

*the chassis rear end shown on the pics is the obligatory 450x450mm section.

[Giblet]

Once the inside of that nose is open, it becomes bodywork, and in its current design are those 75mm radii to be allowed by the regs?

[aleks_ader]

Manchild

Hw about williams nose style? That will be good for your demands to make front nose bulkhead shorter and higher much as possible?

[manchild]

Manchild

Hw about williams nose style? That will be good for your demands to make front nose bulkhead shorter and higher much as possible?

If you had in mind Williams "walrus" nose and front wing pillars, it is incompatible just as any other conventional solution.


The red outline shows how front end of the most contemporary chassis'look, and that their bulkheads are at double height than mine. So, Wiliams walrus nose doesn't solve the problem.

My idea was to enable airflow trough what FIA defines as compulsory bulkhead. The noses mounted on any conventional bulkhead wouldn't be needed at all if bulkheads weren't almost fully closed, vertical plates with horrible aero efficiency if car would be driven with such front end.

Shape of bulkhead generates need for aerodynamically shaped element - the nose, in order to enable the car to easily penetrate the air and condition it around the rest of the chassis.

Once crash tests became obligatory, noses became safety elements too, combining aero and safety function. What I wanted to achieve was to make bulkheads aero efficient, and therefore reduce size and shape of the noses to minimum - just enough to pass the crash test, while being extended wing carriers more than anything else.

[manchild]

Perhaps two noses would solve the problem - two vertical slim noses separately attached to bulkhead, with no holes in them to meet FIA regulations, and yet with enough thickness to create structure that would pass the crash-test (roughly 80mm each), and enough space between them (approx. 150mm) to enable air flow below chassis. Tiny 5mm or less slit between them would separate them enough not to be considered as one nose with hole in it, while the slit itself would choke on high speeds, thus not creating drag or turbulence. Putting on new wing/nose assembly wouldn't take more time, since both nose would be connected to wing together.

3/4 view top


bulkhead-chassis


front view and rear view


side view


3/4 view bottom


top view


bottom view


Simple doodle of wing and wheels/suspension added, just to make it easier to visualize the proportions and position.
Vertical struts added for lower-rear suspension arms attach points.








Now, is there anything in FIA regulations preventing car from having two separate noses?

[bhall]

Do you think it could be argued that only the upper nose is actually a nose and that the lower one is just a pair of wing struts?

[manchild]

Do you think it could be argued that only the upper nose is actually a nose and that the lower one is just a pair of wing struts?

What upper nose?

It might look a bit eccentric relative to current designs, but bulkhead with dimensions set by FIA is there, two noses are attached to it (that is arguable if two noses are permitted or not), but otherwise, it is more than clear what is front end of the chassis and what is attached to chassis' bulkhead as double nose.