467 replies to this topic

[ANF]

But I do like the look of it.

[Mrluke]

im calling photoshop..why is the car black / grey?

[PayasYouRace]

feudal rulers, totalitarians and vulture capitalists would welcome citizens like that

 

 

anyway, when stepped nose prediction was made, most of us thought "yea that's what regs tell but no teams would do that, they would surely come up with clever solution". Then see what happened.

Hindsight but aero around the front is rather simple with current set of rule, ie guide more air towards the rear, so we actually shudve known that. But only those who have knowledge and facility and design the car can know what's really the best solution. At that time, most of us havent got clue how such gap on the nose would be advantageous. (~08 rule was another. under that rule, mechanical advantage of lower nose tip outweighed aero advantage of high nose, if i'm correct)

So we've learnt a lesson. Some tech journos are excellent, so if that's what they predict then I'm inclined to believe this time.

 

It also had to do with using the nose to drive the front wing, which went full width. Essentially they were using the bi-plane effect to make the front wing more powerful.

 

The new wings have the "lifting" section in the middle, so the teams want to get the nose as far from it as possible and reduce the biplane effect. This fits in well with getting as much air under the car as possible, hence the high noses.

[Henri Greuter]

 

Here's an idea: The best looking nose ever must be that from the 1994 Williams, so take that and mandate it being slapped onto every F1 car...there, done, problem solved.

My most favorite nose design is also a 1994 car but not an F1 car but the Reynard 94I Indycar. It has some begin of a raised nose but only in front of the front axles. Thus no gaping see-through holes behind the front wheels.
But I think I could live with a 1994 Williams shape nose.
It still surprises me that the strange seating position of today (and the limited room for underlegs and feet) are not seen as a potential safety hazard


Henri

[Henri Greuter]

 

Back to the 2006-2008 looking cars please.
 
Just loved the look of F2008 and BMW that season 

You mean that thing with the antler on the nose, horns next to the airbox, asterix wings in front of the sidepod, and God know how many other vanes, flaps, ducts and so on all over the car so you couldn't make up what was bodywork or not?????

No thanks, that generation of cars was even more rediculous looking for me. Then the lookes were spoiled by countless add-on's, now it's only one....

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 13 November 2013 - 12:07.

[Owen]

This looks hideous. It's very symptomatic of current F1 that none of the teams could reach a quick consensus of opinion to solve it. Disappointing.

[jrg19]

 

Credit to Smirkoff on F1 Tech

[Longtimefan]

Here's an idea: The best looking nose ever must be that from the 1994 Williams, so take that and mandate it being slapped onto every F1 car...there, done, problem solved.

 

Jordan 191 was better.

[Lazy]

 

Credit to Smirkoff on F1 Tech

Can't see any problem myself except for the possibility of some adolescent anatomy humour.

[seahawk]

Well at least Vettel can call his car "Blue Eliza" next season.

[SenorSjon]

I thought FW's became 20cm smaller as well?

[OO7]

Well at least Vettel can call his car "Blue Eliza" next season.

Or Meat & Two Veg Mary.  If a car was right up behind him he could say 'x is all over my tranny'.

[PayasYouRace]

In fairness that rendering looks better than Scarbs' line drawing. Still not great though.

[wrighty]

Can't see any problem myself except for the possibility of some adolescent anatomy humour.

jeez that's hideous - i can't even think what they could suggest to engineer this out of the equation.....

 

 

 

......but having said that, either making the wing be mounted on the front 200mm from the nose (or conversely as the regs are written from the front axle centre line do not allow the wing supports to extend backwards from the neutral wing section rear edge, thus making them use the nose as mount) or make that part of the nose part of the crash test to make sure it's actually useful and not just a ridiculous appendage, or perhaps add a new 'minimum width' for that section (or from x in front of the front axle centre line) that maintains the width of the nose all the way to its tip.....hey there's a hundred ways we could regulate that abortion of a design out really......

[OO7]

Will F1 in 2014 be unofficially named Formula Phallus?

[Mrluke]

jeez that's hideous - i can't even think what they could suggest to engineer this out of the equation.....

 

 

 

......but having said that, either making the wing be mounted on the front 200mm from the nose (or conversely as the regs are written from the front axle centre line do not allow the wing supports to extend backwards from the neutral wing section rear edge, thus making them use the nose as mount) or make that part of the nose part of the crash test to make sure it's actually useful and not just a ridiculous appendage, or perhaps add a new 'minimum width' for that section (or from x in front of the front axle centre line) that maintains the width of the nose all the way to its tip.....hey there's a hundred ways we could regulate that abortion of a design out really......

 

This is completely the wrong approach. The reason we have the problem is that the regulations are trying to force the designers to do something that they dont want to do. Therefore they are going to try and do the absolute minimum to satisfy said regulation so they can continue as they were.

 

If we gave the designers a bit more freedom we wouldn't have such ******** designs, its that simple. Dont try to fix over-regulation with more regulation.

[bogi]

The front bulkhead height is limited. They also limited nose tip height because that's the part that will hit the other car first in the sort of t-bone accidents this whole regulation was designed for. As the teams will fight for every centimeter of space under the nose and FIA can only push through regulation changes related to safety, it's likely not as simple as you think it is.

 

--

 

As for the matter at hand, it's still kinda pathetic. The teams must have known about this at least since the regulations were published, but we've heard nothing from then. Until now, a few months before the start of the 2014 season, when they voice their 'concerns', being aware it's already too late to change anything. "Lack of agreement on the need to do something", says the Autosport article. Yea, that kinda sums up the teams' involvement in the rulemaking process so far. What a mess.

 

I know it's limted, but cca. 560mm is too much, front bulkhead should be limited at max 400/450mm, and nose design wouldnt be a problem any more. Or how about no high noses at all, make it one with the front wing, and you solved other problem known as ''tea tray/splitter'' area.

Edited by bogi, 13 November 2013 - 13:32.

[PayasYouRace]

That's exactly right. The problem is stemming from having an over-constrained design.

 

Perhaps all they had to do was specify something like "There must be no gap between the bodywork and the floor plane" (for flat bottomed designs - think 1990 Ferrari) or "bodywork ahead of the front chassis bulkhead must not protrude above a plane extending forwards of the bulkhead at an angle of x degrees below the horizontal"?

[V3TT3L]

No chicken wings [sidepods] allowed in 2014, so its wrong 

[Jimisgod]

Dick Johnson missed his chance, born 30 years too early.

[rhukkas]

I think they look awesome, don't know what everyone is complaining about. I don't think F1 cars have looked better tbh.

[chipmcdonald]

"Is this a joke.....?"

[Lazy]

That's exactly right. The problem is stemming from having an over-constrained design.

 

Perhaps all they had to do was specify something like "There must be no gap between the bodywork and the floor plane" (for flat bottomed designs - think 1990 Ferrari) or "bodywork ahead of the front chassis bulkhead must not protrude above a plane extending forwards of the bulkhead at an angle of x degrees below the horizontal"?

Maybe the real problem is the teams vetoing all the sensible suggestions and the FIA end up having to bodge it.

[wrighty]

This is completely the wrong approach. The reason we have the problem is that the regulations are trying to force the designers to do something that they dont want to do. Therefore they are going to try and do the absolute minimum to satisfy said regulation so they can continue as they were.

 

If we gave the designers a bit more freedom we wouldn't have such ******** designs, its that simple. Dont try to fix over-regulation with more regulation.

 

true, i agree with you to an extent, but the teams would entirely likely test (or at least wind tunnel test) the tits off every design they can come up with, and then the sport falls into its own death pit of unlimited spending.....remember BMW building evaluation engine models in V8, V10 AND V12 for the dyno work before their entry at year 2000-ish.......that's how teams test everything now, especially when they are limited for track time.....an open rulebook = an open chequebook.

Edited by wrighty, 13 November 2013 - 14:03.

[Jimisgod]

I think it's the best nose in F1 since Prost.

[SenorSjon]

I think they look awesome, don't know what everyone is complaining about. I don't think F1 cars have looked better tbh.

 

Welcome to the boards, Stevie Wonder.

 

true, i agree with you to an extent, but the teams would entirely likely test (or at least wind tunnel test) the tits off every design they can come up with, and then the sport falls into its own death pit of unlimited spending.....remember BMW building evaluation engine models in V8, V10 AND V12 for the dyno work before their entry at year 2000-ish.......that's how teams test everything now, especially when they are limited for track time.....an open rulebook = an open chequebook.

A Beemer V12? I would have loved that one. We are 10-15 years further down the road and only half the cilinders left.

[Gridfire]

These recent renderings focusing on the nose/penis seem to be assuming the airbox will remain the same, while previous turbocharged F1 cars have dispensed with the airbox and replaced it with a rollhoop, since the airbox must create horrific drag if it isn't necessary to collect air for a normally aspirated engine. Also, I was sure I'd read the front wings are set to be narrower than the 2009-2013 ones...?

[Peat]

Also, I was sure I'd read the front wings are set to be narrower than the 2009-2013 ones...?

 

They are, not alot though. They sit about 2 inches within the outer edge of the tyre.

[PayasYouRace]

Maybe the real problem is the teams vetoing all the sensible suggestions and the FIA end up having to bodge it.

 

I don't know who this Vito is, but when I get my hands on him ;)

 

Yeah the teams have a little too much say when it comes to the rules. Hard to find a good balance though.

[DS27]

 

 We are 10-15 years further down the road and only half the cilinders left.

 

 

And then there's all the other great ways F1 has progressed...

[PayasYouRace]

These recent renderings focusing on the nose/penis seem to be assuming the airbox will remain the same, while previous turbocharged F1 cars have dispensed with the airbox and replaced it with a rollhoop, since the airbox must create horrific drag if it isn't necessary to collect air for a normally aspirated engine. Also, I was sure I'd read the front wings are set to be narrower than the 2009-2013 ones...?

 

I think the airbox might remain as an air intake. I could be wrong though. Anyway look closely at some of the turbo cars of the 80s. You'll see the intakes. Benettons from 1986/87 (only on one side for the former) are particularly good examples.

[dau]

These recent renderings focusing on the nose/penis seem to be assuming the airbox will remain the same, while previous turbocharged F1 cars have dispensed with the airbox and replaced it with a rollhoop, since the airbox must create horrific drag if it isn't necessary to collect air for a normally aspirated engine. Also, I was sure I'd read the front wings are set to be narrower than the 2009-2013 ones...?

The airbox will most likely stay on all cars. Regulations mandate bodywork in that area, i made a pic with the dimensions a while ago but i have no idea where i put it. A blade roll structure could probably work, but doesn't really make much sense anymore. Front wings are 15cm narrower than they are now, but that's just 7.5cm on either side. Will probably still look 'better' (ymmv) than the full-width wings now.

 

Edit: There it is:

There has to be bodywork in the red area, so we're not going to see flat cars with rollhoops. Side profile pic stolen from Scarbs, obviously.

 

I know it's limted, but cca. 560mm is too much, front bulkhead should be limited at max 400/450mm, and nose design wouldnt be a problem any more. Or how about no high noses at all, make it one with the front wing, and you solved other problem known as ''tea tray/splitter'' area.

 

But like i said, the teams don't want to do that and the FIA can't push through against the teams unless it's safety-related. Which the bulkhead height isn't. That's why we only got those small incremental changes to the height in the past few seasons.

Edited by dau, 13 November 2013 - 15:13.

[ANF]

 

Credit to Smirkoff on F1 Tech

And why would the nose stick out that far in front of the wing?

[OO7]

And why would the nose stick out that far in front of the wing?

If the nose ended up directly above the front wing, how would it be able to get to all the ants?

[sheogorath]

Well at least Vettel can call his car "Blue Eliza" next season.

 

Meatspin Mary

 

Sausage Sussy

 

Manly Mindy.

[DanardiF1]

Welcome to the boards, Stevie Wonder.

 

A Beemer V12? I would have loved that one. We are 10-15 years further down the road and only half the cilinders left.

 

Some great F1 cars that have less cylinders than the current V8s.

 

1952 Ferrari Tipo 500 - 4 cylinder (technically an F2 car but F1 ran to those regs in those years, Ascari setting the soon-to-be Vettel-ed consecutive wins record in this car)

 

1958 Maserati 250F - 2.5l Straight 6

 

1959 Cooper-Climax T51 - 2.5l 4-cylinder

 

1961 Ferrari 156 - 1.5l V6

 

The late 60's and 70's were dominated by the 3.0l Cosworth V8, so I'll jump to the most relevant period to the new engines, the 80's.

 

1983 Brabham BT52 - 1.5l Turbo 4-cylinder

 

1985 McLaren MP4/2 - 1.5l Turbo V6

 

I could carry on, because F1 has never been just about screaming V10's and V12's. They were beautiful sounding of course but F1 is not intrinsically tied to these engine configurations.

[DanardiF1]

I am fed up of this modern obsession with F1 designers to get air underneath the nose and chassis to the floor. It's created compromised mechanical designs (the stupidly angled front suspension arms on most modern cars), ugly cars and awkward safety issues concerning having the strongest part of the car raised up to near another driver's head in height.

 

It's too late to change completely now as it's such a big part of designing a chassis, but the FIA should have mandated a revised bulkhead height so that the aesthetics of the cars all follow some more traditional lines no matter what individual solutions they come up with.

[muramasa]

And why would the nose stick out that far in front of the wing?

coz

 

r e g u l a t i o n

[ANF]

coz

 

r e g u l a t i o n

Oh, really!
I mean, really?

[ezequiel]

Now I want to see if the 2014 regs have made the back of the cars look like vaginas. It could lead to some interesting first-corner accidents. It might be a great way to get some testing for young drivers if 9 races after a crash, a GP2 car is born.

I don't think so, the noses look too... erm... flaccid

[nosecone]

"The low nose is not a problem," Michael explained.

"The problem is the vagaries in the way you get through the crash test - and the teams will mostly be going down one solution.

"It is not because of the chassis height."

 

 

Ok i'm for sure no expert and i don't work in F1. But why should a "thin" sausage help to pass the crash test? If the crash test is the problem you design your whole nose down to that level to have more volume/area which can absorb the impact.

 

But maybe it's Micheal who is wrong. In the same article it is mentioned that the design is due to the aerodynamic. Micheal isn't working as an technical director anymore. Thus he could be wrong here.

[Henri Greuter]

I am fed up of this modern obsession with F1 designers to get air underneath the nose and chassis to the floor. It's created compromised mechanical designs (the stupidly angled front suspension arms on most modern cars), ugly cars and awkward safety issues concerning having the strongest part of the car raised up to near another driver's head in height.

 

It's too late to change completely now as it's such a big part of designing a chassis, but the FIA should have mandated a revised bulkhead height so that the aesthetics of the cars all follow some more traditional lines no matter what individual solutions they come up with.

 

Thanks for speaking out mate,

I was under the impression that I am the only one out here in this forum with similar feelings.... Thankfully I'm not.....

 

Another advantage of specifying lower bulkheads: getting rid of all accusations and suspicions about flexing tea trays under the monocoque.

 

Henri

[CSquared]

I am fed up of this modern obsession with F1 designers to get air underneath the nose and chassis to the floor. It's created compromised mechanical designs (the stupidly angled front suspension arms on most modern cars), ugly cars and awkward safety issues concerning having the strongest part of the car raised up to near another driver's head in height.

 

It's too late to change completely now as it's such a big part of designing a chassis, but the FIA should have mandated a revised bulkhead height so that the aesthetics of the cars all follow some more traditional lines no matter what individual solutions they come up with.

 

Thanks for speaking out mate,

I was under the impression that I am the only one out here in this forum with similar feelings.... Thankfully I'm not.....

 

Another advantage of specifying lower bulkheads: getting rid of all accusations and suspicions about flexing tea trays under the monocoque.

 

Henri

They should just mandate flat bottoms, nose to tail. They should have done that 20 years ago. 

[pliskinrob]

I hope the Mclaren has the anteater nose from 2006/2007 at the bottom of the 'bigger nose'

[CSquared]

 I loved the BT44 and BT48; the M23 and the M28; the T1, T2 and T3, the 003, 007 and P34; the DN5; the JPS 77 and 78! Among others. Sorry, I am an old man.

I would underline the 003 and T2 and add the Lotus 79, 72, and the Ligier JS7. 

[F1Champion]

Quick FIA do a rule change and raise the minimum weight while you're at it!

[Mrluke]

true, i agree with you to an extent, but the teams would entirely likely test (or at least wind tunnel test) the tits off every design they can come up with, and then the sport falls into its own death pit of unlimited spending.....remember BMW building evaluation engine models in V8, V10 AND V12 for the dyno work before their entry at year 2000-ish.......that's how teams test everything now, especially when they are limited for track time.....an open rulebook = an open chequebook.

Disagree tbh.

Taking Mercedes as an example (because its easy) say the board approve £50m a year for the f1 project, the team finish 2nd but only spend £10m. The board will ask why they didnt spend the rest and win. Are the team going to reply that its very well regulated so they dont need to spend the rest?

Or going the other way, the board approve £50m to spend on an open formula, the team arent going to spend £500m because they dont have it, they will spend the same £50m that they were given.

All the regulation does is make it very very expensive to close the 0.3s gap to the next car. Which is probably most of the reason RBR are so far ahead, they spend the most over the last 5 years by ignoring the resource agreement and the other teams cant close the gap.

With open regulation the team with the biggest budget will probably dominate, with very tight regulation the team with the biggest budget will dominate but it will look closer. At least with open regs the cars will look different and have different strengths, plus theres a chance that the lower teams will try something the bigger boys hadnt thought of.

[F1ultimate]

Ahh so F1 noses will be even more inspired by my favorite animal:

 

[mnmracer]

[wrighty]

Disagree tbh.

Taking Mercedes as an example (because its easy) say the board approve £50m a year for the f1 project, the team finish 2nd but only spend £10m. The board will ask why they didnt spend the rest and win. Are the team going to reply that its very well regulated so they dont need to spend the rest?

Or going the other way, the board approve £50m to spend on an open formula, the team arent going to spend £500m because they dont have it, they will spend the same £50m that they were given.

All the regulation does is make it very very expensive to close the 0.3s gap to the next car. Which is probably most of the reason RBR are so far ahead, they spend the most over the last 5 years by ignoring the resource agreement and the other teams cant close the gap.

With open regulation the team with the biggest budget will probably dominate, with very tight regulation the team with the biggest budget will dominate but it will look closer. At least with open regs the cars will look different and have different strengths, plus theres a chance that the lower teams will try something the bigger boys hadnt thought of.

 

Good points all, thank you I'd concur that your theory (especially the MB board scenarios) are likely, but you know as well as i do that every F1 team will spend every dollar it can raise, and then they'll spend some more anyway and worry about it later......if the cheque books are opened then they'll hammer the development of every scenario, if they're allowed to test they'll bring every part they can to every test they can, if only to corroborate their wind tunnel and CFD data. If the rulebooks are clamped tighter than a ducks bum in a rainstorm, they'll push every limit anyway, just because they can. They'll still spend every cent at their disposal, because if they're not faster than them down there, there's a reason for it.

The other problem is that the teams are much much cleverer than the rulemakers, and now that they're on the committees that can say 'well we don't want to introduce big changes because we'll bankrupt ourselves extrapolating every nth degree we can find' the status quo is maintained by ever diminishing returns. The FIA can't beat their own system, and the teams just threaten to go all crack addict whenever they're offered some free thought....regulation wins....and the more it wins the duller it gets. sorry.