[Tech Issue] Low noses set to be 'Ugly'

[Aysedasi]

I guess they could do the air box as well while they're at it......

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Can you imagine any sponsor wanting to put their name on the end of droop (!)

Rumour has it that Durex are seriously thinking about introducing a Red Bull flavoured condom into their current range.

[BSchneiderFan]

I do wonder how much the rule-makers take into account the aesthetics of the cars, if at all. I agree that aerodynamicists can't unlearn what they know, but it should surely still be possible to design regs which produce good-looking cars.

[Greem]

A good looking car is one that wins. That's all that matters, in the end.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The problem is that the law makers "make the regulations" and the teams have to design the cars.

If the law makers "designed the regulations" the teams would end up building spec cars

At the moment the law makers are trying to control too much that the designers are being left with aero solutions that are not aesthetically pleasing.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Rumour has it that Durex are seriously thinking about introducing a Red Bull flavoured condom into their current range.

Rumour also has it that Viagra's proposed sponsorship deal has flopped as a result of the new regulations

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by davyboy

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out what part of the human anatomy the new front end looks like... and having seen the drawings, I think the marketing depts. of the teams are aware of the ridicule and negative PR that F1 will be subjected to if they see the light of day. Can you imagine any sponsor wanting to put their name on the end of droop (!)

race cars have always been marketed as testosterone injected phallic symbols...really they are giving the marketing departments exactly what they want!

it is odd though. im not an aero expert but my common sense always led me to believe that the most aerodynamic shapes were smooth contoured and rounded lines. instead the experts give us unattractive boxy sharp lines and stepped noses. i guess it just shows how little understanding i have for the black arts.

[Tim the Grey]

The furthest forward part of the car shall be no more than 300 mm from the floor. It shall be no more than 300mm wide.
No part of the bodywork ahead of the front wheel centre line shall be more than 600mm wide.
The top of the body, at the front wheel centre line, shall be flat on the axle centre line, and no less than 600mm from the ground.

Right, that loses ugly front wings, and ridiculous high noses in one fell swoop? No doubt the teenage obsessives will be in to correct the dimensions, but you see where I'm trying to go, here?

[Sodemo]

They didn't seem too bothered about ugly cars when they introduced the 1998 technical regs with the pinched cars and nasty looking grooved tyres.

[BSchneiderFan]

The grooved tyres really were horrible.

[bauble]

Looking at the Autosport drawing reminded something I was looking at this morning

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bauble

Looking at the Autosport drawing reminded something I was looking at this morning

Let us know what it was when you remember!

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

race cars have always been marketed as testosterone injected phallic symbols...really they are giving the marketing departments exactly what they want!

This one's pointing in the wrong direction though

[Lanky Turtle]

I think they expected the designers to design a sharp, smooth pointy nose, transitioning back into the rest of the car. But once again, looking for downforce anywhere they can they "beaked" it up. Although I've lived with a low nose my entire life and neither my wife nor mom say that it is considered ugly.

[Razzzor]

Looks like the front nose is the same as this year but now with a long skinny turd poking out.

People whinge about Indycars looking bad, my god if F1 has those front noses and the ladder-like back wings still, they'll be far worse imo.

[Razzzor]

In fact here ya go, 20mins and a proper 3d version of it.

[Paradise City]

It's not really that uglier is it?

[Peat]

But it doesn't comply. Nose tip is too high.

[Richard C]

I don't know anything about the regulations in this area, but does side impact testing include simulations (or actual testing) using a simulated nose? In short, will this smaller nose make it harder to pass side impact testing? I know the nose is a crush structure, but I just see a spear ready to poke through the side of a monocoque.

Richard

[Marbot]

There are quite a few of these crash test videos on youtube. You must use the actual part for the test that will be used on the car, and if you modify the structure in any way it has to be retested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA_UVUpniBc

[TF110]

Its really not that hard...



Imo, they should have left the rules alone after 2008

[wnut]

Originally Posted by TF110

Its really not that hard...



Imo, they should have left the rules alone after 2008

It looks like it has been wrecked and very badly repaired!

Not a straight panel in sight!

[bauble]

Originally Posted by wnut

Let us know what it was when you remember!

I can recall what it is, but not what it is for.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Marbot

There are quite a few of these crash test videos on youtube. You must use the actual part for the test that will be used on the car, and if you modify the structure in any way it has to be retested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA_UVUpniBc

I get how the front and rear structures are tested and have seen those videos (they are interesting). In short they are tested against a flat plane that simulates a solid object (such as concrete wall). I was curious about how the side impacts are tested (can’t seem to find videos of that). Especially with respect to what device they use to simulate the penetration and if the design of that test device covers the potential for penetration of the newer smaller 2014 nose.

I think I have mostly answered my own question. Short answer, the new 2014 nose is probably not an issue from a penetration perspective.

Long answer…

I looked at the 2013 and 2014 technical regulations and I think both use the same basic side impact procedure. One is a pure intrusion test that tests the side impact panel and the other is a push off test. As best as I can tell the push off test is more for a test against a solid object as the test panel is large. The intrusion test uses a rigid truncated code. So I assume it is to cover a wider range of potential "sharp" intrusions. If I am reading the information in the test procedures correctly the cone has a 138mm diameter face giving it a cross sectional area of its face of about 14,950 mm^2. And as far as I can tell minimum cross sectional area of the crush structure of the nose has not changed from 2013 to 2014. Both specify 9,000 mm^2 (measured back 50mm from the tip). So hypothetically nothing has changed from 2013 to 2014 as to potential increase in penetration of a nose.

I also realized that I had a misconception when reading the Autosport article. I left with the impression that the regulations were not just lowering the tip, but also making it smaller (the article doesn't say that, but I left with that impression). What is happening is that a 2013 nose could be just as small as the illustrated 2014 nose. The point is that as they lower the nose, the designers start to think “how small can I make it to not obstruct air flow under the car”. So that results in a nose cross section that is built up to the minimum cross sectional size. I am assuming that most/all 2013 noses have a cross sectional area that is larger than the minimum, hence larger noses today. Lastly the regulations do not specify the shape of the cross section, only its area. So I could imagine highly sculpted, tall and thin noses to help aid air flow around the tip? They still have to meet the deceleration requirements of the frontal impact which may be a challenge with a smaller and oddly shaped nose.

Richard

[TF110]

Originally Posted by wnut

It looks like it has been wrecked and very badly repaired!

Not a straight panel in sight!

Looks are subjective. The picture is only to illustrate how the nose cones followed the 2014 ruling before.