Technical quest on Fw26 nose

[Giando]

Hi.
Now that the interesting and distinctive Fw26 nose cone has been replaced by a conventional one… I have a question/doubt I would like to share with you.
I remember that during the 1995 season there had been an accident in the first laps of the Canadian Gp between Herbert (Benetton-Renault) and Hakkinen (McLaren-Mercedes). The finn crashed in to the side of the englishman at a relatively low speed, but as the McLaren had a very narrow and sharp nose cone, it made a big hole in to the benetton monocoque. So, FIA stated a rule to avoid things like this, fixing a minimum section of the nose just 5 cm behind the front end of the car.
So I’m asking myself – given that the rule is still alive – if the Fw26 nose is illegal: I mean, the double support doesn’t seem to have a large section, they are very very thin. I don’t even know if that rule was limited to the central 50 cm long section of the car: in this case, maybe this is the reason why the Fw26 nose front wing support are divergent, and not linear: just to be out of that section, so that the “main” front-end of the car has to be considered the short nose itself.
Any idea?

[Knowlesy]

If it was illegal it wouldn't have raced.

[Lotusonpole]

Hmmm, interesting point but I think knowlesy is right.
The Walrus raced too many times for it to have been illegal.

Cheers
Peter

[1200Datto27]

And with a hooter like that, the tech guys would have measured it each way from sunday.

[Giando]

You're right, guys.

Anyway, I'm still interested in understanding why was it legal: I mean, i would like to know how that rule about the section of the nose has to be applied.

[Lotusonpole]

Yes it would help if we had the rules in front of us.
I suppose it depends on what is regarded as the start of the nose....Can the leading edge of the front wing be ahead of the sart of the nose?
Maybe Williams got round it as the supports flowed from the general line of the bodywork to the wing attachment.
Sounds like a Lotus ploy to me...lol...why make two parts when one will do both jobs.

Probably someone more sage than I will be along soon.

Cheers
Peter

Cheers

[grumpy1]

The rule applies to the min width of the nose cone at the end.The tusks so to speak,were classed as wing supports so therefore not covered within this rule.If you can be bothered visit the FIA website where,if you understand double dutch and confusion,they explain what you can and cannot do.I belive Ferarri tried the Walrus idea a couple of years ago and discarded it before they raced with it as they couldn't get any benifit from it either.

The Grumpy1

[1200Datto27]

And who at Ferrari designed it? Dr Terzi of course, now working for Williams. it is obviously something that she believes will work, but has so far been unsuccessful with it.

[grumpy1]

Originally posted by 1200Datto27
And who at Ferrari designed it? Dr Terzi of course, now working for Williams. it is obviously something that she believes will work, but has so far been unsuccessful with it.

F1 is supposed to be the cream of the crop.Its now been tried in race form and has no benifit so we can only hope other teams learn the lesson.On the other hand if had of worked everyone would copy it for next year.

The Grumpy1

[Mattracer]

I/m glad it's gone- purely aesthetically speaking, it was bloody ugly!

[Try Hard]

Originally posted by grumpy1
The rule applies to the min width of the nose cone at the end.The tusks so to speak,were classed as wing supports so therefore not covered within this rule.

Quite right, I can't remember the exact dimensions, but it was put in place to stop the sharp pointed noses (like the Arrows/footwork nose too).

Nothing, as far as I know of, has classified the wing supports, except perhaps the leading edge having to have specific radius, much like the front wing endplates, which IIRC, have to be 10mm thick on the leading edge.

Ed