Jump to content


Photo

The Merits of High Noses on F1 Cars


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 pbukovca

pbukovca
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 08 June 2012 - 03:07

I remember reading in old magazine articles saying one of the reasons the Williams team went to a high nose for 1995 was because the FIA banned the long end plates stretching back past the front tires. Did these long
end plates set up vortices carefully placed to flow under the car ? I mean read Newey state at the time that there was not much difference between the high or low nose, but that do the ban on these long end plates on the front wing he felt the high nose was the way to go. Obviously the Tyrell in 1990 was the first to set this trend and Benetton followed suit. I have a book on car aero in which the author Mcbeath says that the high nose design
is less pitch sensitive since the flow to the underfloor is not blocked as much underbraking where with the low nose the air is pushed to the side. John Barnard said in another F1 book I have that there is not
much difference between the high nose and low nose and that choosing the low nose for the 1995 Ferrari and sticking with it was merely choosing to continue that line of development with the car instead of changing directions
and trying to take development in a new direction with the high nose. The 1994 Ferrari had the high "shark nose" while the 1995 Ferrari design reverted back to the low nose and then ini 1996 the team switched from
low nose to high nose mid season and Schumacher said the high nose made the car more predictable to drive but he felt it did not make that car that much quicker. Now of course all the car have high noses.
I'm a novice to F1. So is the high nose really better aerodynamically ? By a little or a lot ? And why ?

Advertisement

#2 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 June 2012 - 22:57

I always took it that there were two reasons for high noses

1. Allowed an extra section of wing under the nose for downforce production
2. The path of the air through the splitter and under the car accelerated the air thereby creating more downforce from the floor.

Very simplistic way to be looking at it I'd suspect.

#3 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:08

Lets not forget that there is a optimum length on the floor for the diffuser. But i doubt that was important when they first appeared.

#4 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,096 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 09 June 2012 - 13:23

Ali_G pretty much got it I think.

#5 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 09 June 2012 - 22:51

I'd be interested to know how the introduction of the stepped floor from 1995 onwards affect the decision to go for a high nose.

Almost instantly after this rule change, high noses became the norm.

#6 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 06 July 2012 - 16:41

Thought the high nose was to feed more air to the diffuser and boost air speed at the splitter to generaqte vortex next to the side pods to act as an invisible side skirt preventing air going under. I think now they even have a mechanical advantage with suspension geometry that allows for structural advantages....but not with pull-rods.

:cool:

#7 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 06 July 2012 - 18:30

Thought the high nose was to feed more air to the diffuser and boost air speed at the splitter to generaqte vortex next to the side pods to act as an invisible side skirt preventing air going under. I think now they even have a mechanical advantage with suspension geometry that allows for structural advantages....but not with pull-rods.

:cool:


Ferrari are running pull rods this year. Amazing considering how high the pull rod is mounted to the chassis.