Jump to content


Photo

Proof ...


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:14

Within these forums it is often proved that the FIA and apprently the teams themselves on occasion just aren't in touch with reality when it comes to rule making but of course it's often tech rules that aren't visible ones and often subjective opinions as to their values but this time it is clear and obvious how bad the rule is - I thought the low nose "dimension box" 2012 rule was stupidly written when I first saw it besides not being anywhere near the dimensions that should have been offered and now we end up with these utter eyesores for 2012 ....

Posted Image
Posted Image

I can only hope that they aren't winners and that the old adage is true; function follows form.

Edited by cheapracer, 05 February 2012 - 07:23.


Advertisement

#2 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,829 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:28

And what is wrong with those ugly mad boffins nightmares. And I do mean the whole car just not those absolutely rediculous front wings with there 28 or so planes!

#3 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:44

And what is wrong with those ugly mad boffins nightmares. And I do mean the whole car just not those absolutely rediculous front wings with there 28 or so planes!


Actually the cars that have been shown so far have all had a remarkable cleanup to the rear halves through the loss of the EBD systems so their is some positives happening.

#4 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:01

Posted Image

^ Photo taken with an iphone.

#5 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:05

About ugliness. We have this issue at the start of almost every new season. After a couple races we do get used to it. And compare to mid-90s cars, the cars of 2005-2010 era look so much more....purposeful. You can see the evolution in aerodynamics merely by one glance at the cars.

#6 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 February 2012 - 14:16

About ugliness. .... You can see the evolution in aerodynamics merely by one glance at the cars.


Up until the mid 90's you could actually, if loosely, identify racing cars with sports cars, low nose swooping back to the broad shoulders - that identification is long gone now.

... and they are racing cars not 'effing jet fighters.

Edited by cheapracer, 05 February 2012 - 14:16.


#7 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 05 February 2012 - 14:51

Is there any secret deal between FIA and Lego gong on??? Look at that Force India car...

#8 Woody3says

Woody3says
  • Member

  • 424 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 05 February 2012 - 15:01

look so much more....purposeful.

You are mistaking "busy" with "purpose" here.

#9 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,266 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 05 February 2012 - 15:34

The McLaren doesn't look that way, it comes down to how you interpret the rules.

#10 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 February 2012 - 16:18

The McLaren doesn't look that way, it comes down to how you interpret the rules.


That's very true and what I was saying is the rules should be written so no one ends up with that interpretation for the good of the sport (fans visual aspect).


#11 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 February 2012 - 18:37

That's very true and what I was saying is the rules should be written so no one ends up with that interpretation for the good of the sport (fans visual aspect).


The rules are written these days for the good of the aero guys not the sport.
Ugly is not a strong enough word for these silly looking things.
Lego is about right, I can just see a little lego driver with a pointly yellow helmet.

I've got it!!! It is the French influence, reminds me of those sit up and beg roll over on corners French rural cars.
Complete with the De Gaulle nose. Is that how you spell it, like Winston Churchill I am never sure.
I bet Enzo is turning in his grave with them placing such an ugly French nose on one of his cars.

Edited by 24gerrard, 05 February 2012 - 18:44.


#12 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 06 February 2012 - 00:29

The McLaren doesn't look that way, it comes down to how you interpret the rules.


Yes Ross, so far McLaren's the only one without the step and it looks great too. That said FI and Lotus are both somewhat more eye candy then Big Red.
Seems to be a lot of speculation out there as to who has got it right; time will tell.
(Hopefully in McLaren's favour) ;-)

#13 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,707 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:49

That's very true and what I was saying is the rules should be written so no one ends up with that interpretation for the good of the sport (fans visual aspect).


Posted Image


#14 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:04

Posted Image

In that case (and many others) natural selecion took charge of fixing the problem. I guess it wont happen this time.

#15 naiboz

naiboz
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:50

the thing that bugs me about these cars is....

I thought they introduced the "low" nose rule to stop cars spearing each other

but so far, the tip of the nose's are just as high, if not higher than previous cars

In any logical world the rule would have read "the tip of the nose will be no higher than x from the reference plane" or something similar in technical parlance

do people not read these things? think them through? do technical directors not put their hand up and say "wtf is that rule all about?"

F1 really is the world in microcosm

#16 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 06 February 2012 - 15:20

but so far, the tip of the nose's are just as high, if not higher than previous cars


No they aren't but here's the rub, the lower nose was introduced on safety grounds but we have ended up with this spear on the Sauber ...

Posted Image

Posted Image


... now someone tell me that hitting the side of your car at 100 mph isn't going to penetrate right through and cut you in half.

Edited by cheapracer, 06 February 2012 - 15:23.


#17 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 06 February 2012 - 15:53

Don't know why, I felt the impulse to post this pic...

Posted Image

#18 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 06 February 2012 - 16:04

I for one am glad you did :up:

I might just pop over to the old farts forum for a bit, some beautiful cars over there, some are even officially beautiful, being found on display in art museums.

#19 rachael

rachael
  • Member

  • 110 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 February 2012 - 19:57

No they aren't but here's the rub, the lower nose was introduced on safety grounds but we have ended up with this spear on the Sauber ...



... now someone tell me that hitting the side of your car at 100 mph isn't going to penetrate right through and cut you in half.

The tip of the nose is only a few plies of carbon and has minimal strength so disintegrates immediately on impact. Vulnerable areas of the chassis are covered with a material called zylon which is highly resistant to intrusions.

Advertisement

#20 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 20:16

The tip of the nose is only a few plies of carbon and has minimal strength so disintegrates immediately on impact. Vulnerable areas of the chassis are covered with a material called zylon which is highly resistant to intrusions.



There was another slomo movie showing the cone crunch that I couldn't find. The cone itself is a sacrifice piece intended to absorb dissipate energy.

Edited by saudoso, 06 February 2012 - 20:17.


#21 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 06 February 2012 - 20:19

Rachael, that seems to me a bit daft- that way they would seem to throw away a good chance to absorb part of the frontal impact before it reaches main structure (monocoque and survival cell). Stiffer/stronger nose section would IMHO reduce the g loads on driver in case of frontal impact.

#22 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 February 2012 - 20:19

I for one am glad you did :up:

I might just pop over to the old farts forum for a bit, some beautiful cars over there, some are even officially beautiful, being found on display in art museums.

You can see there all the things FIA screwed: The wider wheel base, the lower and wider rear wing. The nose does not need mentioning righ now.

EDIT: To their credit, they rescued the tyres from their low, 4 almost equal dune buggy tyres.

Edited by saudoso, 06 February 2012 - 20:21.


#23 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 06 February 2012 - 21:28

Vulnerable areas are covered with a material called zylon which is highly resistant to intrusions.

Or tights.

#24 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 06 February 2012 - 23:32

Since crossing a curb perpendicular seems to often preceed a T-bone hit, the Sauber nose, hopping airborne just a little bit, would seem to be likely to hit a helmet before any car-to-car contact is made. :eek: At least the other two constructors shown above had the decency to put the wing pylons all the way to the front.

#25 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:40

Rachael, that seems to me a bit daft- that way they would seem to throw away a good chance to absorb part of the frontal impact before it reaches main structure (monocoque and survival cell). Stiffer/stronger nose section would IMHO reduce the g loads on driver in case of frontal impact.


Exactly the reverse in fact.

The stiffer/stronger the nosecone, the higher the decelleration. The nosecone is an impact absorbing structure that collapses at a determined rate, absorbing/dissipating the energy of the impact progressively. Increase its strength (make it harder/stronger/stiffer) and the impact is necessarily more brutal.



#26 faaaz

faaaz
  • Member

  • 1,870 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:06

In what way was the rule suppose to be safer? Lower nose cone so less chance of penetrating?

When I was a kid I'd try and draw cars, I'd end up drawing something like this..and I would scrunch it up and throw it away...Clearly FIA found my drawings.

#27 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:11

hopping airborne just a little bit, would seem to be likely to hit a helmet before any car-to-car contact is made.


Yes, I was exaggerating to get a point across but the reality remains that that thin nose has no place in motor sports.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related



#28 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:18

Notice that RBR is using the step as some sort of air intake ....

Posted Image

#29 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 07 February 2012 - 13:14

Rachael, I hate to press a point, but... Your original post pointed out that the nose has minimal strength and disintegrates upon impact and therefore will pose minimal threat to the driver being T-boned (implied that it won't exert significant force during impact). I find it a bit hard to believe, on account that I suppose it is designed to absorb crash energy- and in order to do so, force must be exerted (I'd say kinetic-kinetic energy dissipation would be minimal) over a distance... I would think that nose was designed for considerable strength (as well as with 'predefined' mode of 'collapsing') within other constraints like function and min. weight.

As per deceleration 'confusion' (I'd say we've not understood each other fully). Let's look at the crash as two-stage event, with two distinct stages*- nose impact and survival cell impact (after the nose was crushed). All the deceleration and energy absorption the nose section does not provide will still have to be absorbed by survival cell, causing the greater impact upon driver. That was my point.

* nose impact would be much more like elastic collision with significant distance within which the event takes place (and time too), whereas survival cell impact is more like solid object hitting another solid body (very short time, small distance- resulting in large deceleration rates), esp. bearing in mind that survival cell must remain intact. Deceleration during the nose impact would be considerably smaller than during survival cell impact- and stronger nose would not affect it by much. Initial deceleration (to which you refer to) would rise, but both peak and average deceleration would drop which is beneficial to the driver (and I was referring to that).

P.S. Sorry for the long-winded post, but... If the nose was designed to absorb energy during the crash event, IMHO it will pose a 'threat' during impact with another car; and I would think that noses are designed to offer significant impact absorption.

#30 rachael

rachael
  • Member

  • 110 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 February 2012 - 13:26

Rachael, I hate to press a point, but... Your original post pointed out that the nose has minimal strength and disintegrates upon impact and therefore will pose minimal threat to the driver being T-boned (implied that it won't exert significant force during impact). I find it a bit hard to believe, on account that I suppose it is designed to absorb crash energy- and in order to do so, force must be exerted (I'd say kinetic-kinetic energy dissipation would be minimal) over a distance... I would think that nose was designed for considerable strength (as well as with 'predefined' mode of 'collapsing') within other constraints like function and min. weight.

As per deceleration 'confusion' (I'd say we've not understood each other fully). Let's look at the crash as two-stage event, with two distinct stages*- nose impact and survival cell impact (after the nose was crushed). All the deceleration and energy absorption the nose section does not provide will still have to be absorbed by survival cell, causing the greater impact upon driver. That was my point.

* nose impact would be much more like elastic collision with significant distance within which the event takes place (and time too), whereas survival cell impact is more like solid object hitting another solid body (very short time, small distance- resulting in large deceleration rates), esp. bearing in mind that survival cell must remain intact. Deceleration during the nose impact would be considerably smaller than during survival cell impact- and stronger nose would not affect it by much. Initial deceleration (to which you refer to) would rise, but both peak and average deceleration would drop which is beneficial to the driver (and I was referring to that).

P.S. Sorry for the long-winded post, but... If the nose was designed to absorb energy during the crash event, IMHO it will pose a 'threat' during impact with another car; and I would think that noses are designed to offer significant impact absorption.


"The tip of the nose is only a few plies of carbon" - sorry I should have been more specific - the first 80 to 100mm has minimal strength.

#31 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 07 February 2012 - 13:30

"The tip of the nose is only a few plies of carbon" - sorry I should have been more specific - the first 80 to 100mm has minimal strength.


Or maybe I should've paid more attention to the part of your quote I put in bold... :)

#32 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 07 February 2012 - 17:09

As I look more at the RBR I see they are bleeding air from the step and diffusing it in the drivers cabin. I guess this creates a bit of a laminar flow over the driver's shoulders/helmet and the area directly behind but I wonder if the other teams believe they will gain a bit of downforce there?

Interesting to see if the RBR vents spring up rapidly later on the others or not....

#33 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 07 February 2012 - 17:48

Dunno, might be downforce (smoothing the flow over cockpit opening) or maybe even airbox related- will be interesting to hear the explanation...

But looking at the RBR pic, I noticed something I've not paid attention to before (mea culpa :blush:)- RCH seems to have gone up considerably over last few years. Necessitated by the rules, design compromise (underbody airflow vs RCH) or they thought it beneficial per se? (my uneducated™ guess is combination of 1 and 2)

#34 dolomite

dolomite
  • Member

  • 950 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 February 2012 - 20:08

According to Newey that hole is a driver cooling duct

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/97390

#35 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 07 February 2012 - 20:26

According to Newey that hole is a driver cooling duct

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/97390

Guess the 2012 version of Vettel and Webber must run hotter.;)

#36 jpf

jpf
  • Member

  • 615 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 February 2012 - 01:01

Guess the 2012 version of Vettel and Webber must run hotter.;)


:) I think it's more like the thinner section nose no longer has much space for a channel that starts at the very tip, as they have in previous years (pretty much every car from recent years has a little oval intake in the tip of the nose for this purpose). Rather than try to fit an air channel into a more cramped crash structure, why not just use the nose-chassis step as a high pressure zone to feed air into the cockpit?

#37 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:07

pretty much every car from recent years has a little oval intake in the tip of the nose for this purpose


Yes exactly, they have had a "little" intake and now Oldey is suddenly is overly concerned about his driver's comfort ...... not.


#38 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:53

Yes exactly, they have had a "little" intake and now Oldey is suddenly is overly concerned about his driver's comfort ...... not.


Ah well. I suppose modern F1 is now all about car airconditioning, shame about any real technology isnt it.

#39 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 February 2012 - 13:53

Nice post from RCF ...

I agree with anyone who feels that it would be valuable for F1 cars to look better than they do now. Most of the car lovers I know already aren't interested in F1 because they aren't similar enough to "real" cars to evoke the same passion. A lot of people I know who will drool over and read magazines etc about real cars all day, but see F1 cars as unrelated objects like bobsleds or something. I think many of them, for example, people in the US, if could get exposed enough to F1, would embrace them in the way that we do. However, the less they look like sleek works of technology art, and the more they look like oddball kit cars, the harder this is. A big part of the thing about cars that makes people so wild about them is their sex appeal. I think it was stupid to have the regulations include a sharp change in height in the nose. just lower the whole thing or leave it alone. Don't make it look broken and the opposite of sleek.



Advertisement

#40 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,510 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 08 February 2012 - 21:47

I'm a bit scared of the people who drool over car magazines.

#41 seldo

seldo
  • Member

  • 1,622 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 09 February 2012 - 03:50

According to Newey that hole is a driver cooling duct

Yes...of course it is......
And honest - there's absolutely no aerodynamic benefit at all....

#42 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:01

No one has mentioned the bleeding obvious. The rules allow aerodynamic aids and apply numerous restrictions (s**t-loads actually) to keep downforce within sane limits, all-the-while maintaining the archaic "open wheel" concept. So - the designers are asked to start with a brick and add feathers within strictly defined parameters and come up with something that flies.

Any surprise the result looks nothing like a bird? Talk about polishing turds!

#43 naiboz

naiboz
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:07

No they aren't but here's the rub, the lower nose was introduced on safety grounds but we have ended up with this spear on the Sauber ...


:p

well according to F1.com's own technical analysis the nose (tip and chassis bulkead) are indeed higher than last year.

f1.com

like I had said before, pointless rule, and terribly written

#44 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 24 February 2012 - 07:51

Following ugliness, there's the possibility of some engineers wanting to claw back some outlawed exhaust blowing engine mapping by deliberately making the engines misfire !

AUTOSPORT understands that the issue relates to the extreme possibility of a team trying to make use of a bigger throttle opening than is allowed, to help increase the flow of exhaust gases by inducing a misfire.


A bit of whistle blowing may have saved us that prospect.

It's like trying to un-invent nuclear weapons isn't it !

#45 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 24 February 2012 - 08:07

Yes...of course it is......And honest - there's absolutely no aerodynamic benefit at all....

There's nothing like a bit of secrecy to generate festering conspiracy theories.

The purpose of the air intake is obviously aero related, because it affects airflow. Those effects can be perfectly innocent as well subversive.

Place a ramp on the front of a 350km/hr car and, no matter how refined it is in the wind tunnel, it will deflect air upwards. This might interfere with airflow over the cockpit, and to the airbox and rear wing.

Allowing the air to enter the cockpit, through the ramp, and then dissipate through the driver opening could reduce those effects.

Perhaps it serves the same function as the ducted screen on the Lotus 49, much discussed elsewhere. Simply a case of controlling airflow rather than leaving it to find its own way (I'm sure Adrian hates uncontrolled anything).

Perhaps it helps cool RBRs previously troublesome KERS.

Or, perhaps it's the discovery and exploitation of another regulation loophole!

#46 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,829 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:40

Clearly it is thge heater, put an oil cooler[of any sort] behind that duct and it will be anyway.

#47 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:43

Oh come on, Adrian uses the air to keep the flexible front wing pumped up;-)

Edited by 24gerrard, 24 February 2012 - 11:43.


#48 seldo

seldo
  • Member

  • 1,622 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 February 2012 - 14:17

There's nothing like a bit of secrecy to generate festering conspiracy theories.

The purpose of the air intake is obviously aero related, because it affects airflow. Those effects can be perfectly innocent as well subversive.

Place a ramp on the front of a 350km/hr car and, no matter how refined it is in the wind tunnel, it will deflect air upwards. This might interfere with airflow over the cockpit, and to the airbox and rear wing.

Allowing the air to enter the cockpit, through the ramp, and then dissipate through the driver opening could reduce those effects.

Perhaps it serves the same function as the ducted screen on the Lotus 49, much discussed elsewhere. Simply a case of controlling airflow rather than leaving it to find its own way (I'm sure Adrian hates uncontrolled anything).

Perhaps it helps cool RBRs previously troublesome KERS.

Or, perhaps it's the discovery and exploitation of another regulation loophole!

Maybe it just neutralises the normal low-pressure area of the drivers' cock-pit...

#49 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 459 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 24 February 2012 - 20:49

shame you cannot share low pressure in cockpit to underfloor ala Mallock

#50 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 February 2012 - 21:54

shame you cannot share low pressure in cockpit to underfloor ala Mallock


interested
please explain