515 replies to this topic

[David1976]

Interesting that Giorgio Piola has shown his Ferrari 2014 car prediction has the horrible "spear" nose.

 

Is this likely to be the reality for 2014 cars?

 

Does the spear nose present a danger if the cars impact with other cars in that they could pierce other carbon structures?

 

Do you think teams will come up with a more aesthetic solution?  Let's be honest here - the spear nose looks HORRIBLE!

[Maikel0230]

Yeah, It's kind of ridiculous because the nose was lowered for exactly that reason, to prevent the nose torpedoing into other cars, however i don't think that this little piece of carbon can pierce the safety cell, a radiator or more dangerous a tire however...

 

It's like the FIA want the cars to be ugly.

Edited by Maikel0230, 02 January 2014 - 10:58.

[scarbs]

I've been calling this a finger nose, I know 3-4 teams will definitley run it.  The low nose tip was to reduce flip over accidents, where the nose hits the rear tyre of another car. 

As drawn Piola's nose is very narrow at the tip, in fact it will actually be some 9.5cm x 9.5cm, so the spear effect will not be an issue.

[chumma]

Any pics to go with this post?

[Szoelloe]

Interesting that Giorgio Piola has shown his Ferrari 2014 car prediction has the horrible "spear" nose.

 

Is this likely to be the reality for 2014 cars?

 

Does the spear nose present a danger if the cars impact with other cars in that they could pierce other carbon structures?

 

Do you think teams will come up with a more aesthetic solution?  Let's be honest here - the spear nose looks HORRIBLE!

 

Its not dangerous, and you'd better get used to it.

[David1976]

Any pics to go with this post?

http://www.youtube.c...eature=youtu.be

 

How about a video?

[chumma]

perfect! thankyou

[Jackmancer]

Isn't this the perfect scoop to rear-end a car in front of you and hurt your head?

[David1976]

I've been calling this a finger nose, I know 3-4 teams will definitley run it.  The low nose tip was to reduce flip over accidents, where the nose hits the rear tyre of another car. 

As drawn Piola's nose is very narrow at the tip, in fact it will actually be some 9.5cm x 9.5cm, so the spear effect will not be an issue.

 

At 9.5cm x 9.5cm will it really be necessary to have such a contrast between the "bridge" of the nose and the "tip" or will the solution be blended?

[rhukkas]

I think that design is wishful thinking. They'll be considerably worse.

[fluffy38]

Is this kind of nose dangerous... no ...

 

Is it ugly... yes...

 

but then, i found the 2009 cars ugly when they appeared.. people will get used to them...

[Zava]

I've been calling this a finger nose, I know 3-4 teams will definitley run it.  The low nose tip was to reduce flip over accidents, where the nose hits the rear tyre of another car. 

As drawn Piola's nose is very narrow at the tip, in fact it will actually be some 9.5cm x 9.5cm, so the spear effect will not be an issue.

hi Craig, 

have you seen the asymmetric nose discussion on f1 technical? is it legal, is it feasible, is it worth it, what's your take on it? 

also you said that red bull is not going with the finger nose route (even though with Vettel on board, it would make sense  ), but another solution that is already discussed about by fans. can you share the type of solution with us (and if so, will you please? ), or you can't, because you would lose the trust of your source?

 

p.s.: sorry for the amount of question marks.

[Lazy]

The finger nose will probably be one of the better looking solutions.

 

Some cars will be ugly, a few will look good, as has always been the case.

[Jackmancer]

Are teams allowed to make two tips? E.g like a pitchfork?

[Tenmantaylor]

scarbs, on 02 Jan 2014 - 10:58, said:

I've been calling this a finger nose, I know 3-4 teams will definitley run it.  The low nose tip was to reduce flip over accidents, where the nose hits the rear tyre of another car. 

As drawn Piola's nose is very narrow at the tip, in fact it will actually be some 9.5cm x 9.5cm, so the spear effect will not be an issue.

 

Scarbs   Thanks for your input. Can you point out the most dangerous flip over accidents of the last few years that the high noses caused? I don't recall any in particular. I was under the impression that the low nose was to reduce the possibility of a nose tip hitting a driver's helmet as nearly happened to Schumacher in Abu Dhabi 2010?:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YhVG6gpiuFI

 

Regarding the 'spear', it seems to be a 'tick-box' solution forced upon the designers by the new rules that stipulate a low, long nose tip but the the teams want as much air flowing under the nose as possible to feed the under body aero and diffuser. This conflict of regulated safety vs aero performance is causing this afterthought aesthetic much like what happened with the ugly stepped noses. IMO the rule writer's should have predicted this and not stipulated an unnecessary length forward of the front wing. Maybe reducing the length rule form 1200 to 1100 would have allowed the designers to maintain a purer form.

[scarbs]

hi Craig, 

have you seen the asymmetric nose discussion on f1 technical? is it legal, is it feasible, is it worth it, what's your take on it? 

also you said that red bull is not going with the finger nose route (even though with Vettel on board, it would make sense  ), but another solution that is already discussed about by fans. can you share the type of solution with us (and if so, will you please? ), or you can't, because you would lose the trust of your source?

 

p.s.: sorry for the amount of question marks.

 

I have had a quick look at it, I think the concept make sense, but there are issue with the size of the pylon and the detail of the published regs and unpublished tech directives.

[scarbs]

At 9.5cm x 9.5cm will it really be necessary to have such a contrast between the "bridge" of the nose and the "tip" or will the solution be blended?

The nose tip x-section is only some 10% of the x-section at the chassis bulkhead (95x95mm Vs 275x300mm).  A team could smooth the shape of the nose, but will then lose airflow under the nose, costing rear downforce.

[Lazy]

hi Craig, 

have you seen the asymmetric nose discussion on f1 technical? is it legal, is it feasible, is it worth it, what's your take on it? 

also you said that red bull is not going with the finger nose route (even though with Vettel on board, it would make sense  ), but another solution that is already discussed about by fans. can you share the type of solution with us (and if so, will you please? ), or you can't, because you would lose the trust of your source?

 

p.s.: sorry for the amount of question marks.

I've seen that but it seems to me that it would end up very heavy due to the strength it would need to be. Massive leverage from the long side of the wing for example let alone the weird things it will do in the crash test. 

[scarbs]

 

scarbs, on 02 Jan 2014 - 10:58, said:

 

Scarbs   Thanks for your input. Can you point out the most dangerous flip over accidents of the last few years that the high noses caused? I don't recall any in particular. I was under the impression that the low nose was to reduce the possibility of a nose tip hitting a driver's helmet as nearly happened to Schumacher in Abu Dhabi 2010?:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YhVG6gpiuFI

 

Regarding the 'spear', it seems to be a 'tick-box' solution forced upon the designers by the new rules that stipulate a low, long nose tip but the the teams want as much air flowing under the nose as possible to feed the under body aero and diffuser. This conflict of regulated safety vs aero performance is causing this afterthought aesthetic much like what happened with the ugly stepped noses. IMO the rule writer's should have predicted this and not stipulated an unnecessary length forward of the front wing. Maybe reducing the length rule form 1200 to 1100 would have allowed the designers to maintain a purer form.

 

Webber's Valencia flip was the most obvious related incident.  In some respects the new noses might have the opposite effect than desired in respect to Schumachers AD accident!

I fail to understand how the rules get worded, these finger noses were one of the most obvious solutions to the early published regs.  I presumed this idea would have been edited out by now, but it seems not.  

[Shiroo]

Isn't this the perfect scoop to rear-end a car in front of you and hurt your head?

 

Was exactly my thought. I mean with high speed the car ahead won't simply be lifted by such low nose and the driver behind won't get hit by the rear of the car ahead?

[Jamiednm]

 

 

Is Alonso supposed to look like a midget here? Look at the size of him compared to the tyre!

[Tenmantaylor]

Webber's Valencia flip was the most obvious related incident.  In some respects the new noses might have the opposite effect than desired in respect to Schumachers AD accident!

I fail to understand how the rules get worded, these finger noses were one of the most obvious solutions to the early published regs.  I presumed this idea would have been edited out by now, but it seems not.  

 

Thanks. Having re-watched Webber's (Red Bull) flip I can see how the new low tipped nose would have potentially prevented Webber flipping. But as you say, solve one problem and another can arise. Could the lower tip could have flipped Heikki up in the air or could Webber have gone under the back of the Lotus? This was my point, there are so many ways in which an accident can happen, writing rules for a single mode of accident and expecting it to be safer in all situations is a nigh on impossible task.

 

An example of this is Imola 94, Senna was struck by a protrusion from the side so the cockpit sides were raised. Then more recently Massa and poor Surtees got struck in the front of the helmet and the cage/canopy discussion started but I guess that was a change too far for formula racing to seriously consider just yet. Maybe it will take another accident of this type 

[Clatter]

Yeah, It's kind of ridiculous because the nose was lowered for exactly that reason, to prevent the nose torpedoing into other cars, however i don't think that this little piece of carbon can pierce the safety cell, a radiator or more dangerous a tire however...

 

It's like the FIA want the cars to be ugly.

That's not why it was lowered.

Edited by Clatter, 02 January 2014 - 12:06.

[SenorSjon]

Is this kind of nose dangerous... no ...

 

Is it ugly... yes...

 

but then, i found the 2009 cars ugly when they appeared.. people will get used to them...

 

In my opinion, most people still find them very ugly and are cherishing the day beautiful cars enter F1 again.

[Disgrace]

Is this kind of nose dangerous... no ...

 

Is it ugly... yes...

 

but then, i found the 2009 cars ugly when they appeared.. people will get used to them...

 

This is quite the opposite attitude people should adopt to this. Though this particular discussion regards only aesthetics, F1's troubles are somewhat symbolic of those in the world writ large. People are paying more for less. I'm not sure fans should simply get used to a continually worsening (yet increasingly expensive to consume) product whilst F1 leaves a trail of economic destruction in it's path. The least we should expect are beautiful cars, whether through form or function. These noses represent neither.

[quaint]

Is this kind of nose dangerous... no ...

 

Is it ugly... yes...

 

but then, i found the 2009 cars ugly when they appeared.. people will get used to them...

 

I actually find the Ferrari in the posted video to be much better looking compared to mostly any duck beak car we've had in the last couple of years. Still haven't got used to high and narrow rear wings in not finding them ugly, but perhaps one day they'll take the steps to correct this issue (we've already moving in the right direction with the front wings).

 

Coupled with the new exhaust and power units, I positively can't wait for next season!

[fluffy38]

This is quite the opposite attitude people should adopt to this. Though this particular discussion regards only aesthetics, F1's troubles are somewhat symbolic of those in the world writ large. People are paying more for less. I'm not sure fans should simply get used to a continually worsening (yet increasingly expensive to consume) product whilst F1 leaves a trail of economic destruction in it's path. The least we should expect are beautiful cars, whether through form or function. These noses represent neither.

 

the function is to design something that meets the regs and provide better air distribution under the car / more downforce etc... the reason why the noses are as they are is to meet the regs and have max performance... the oppinion of the fans doesnt matter to the teams (or very minimally)

Of course, the FOM / FIA should look into satisfying the fans but the teams are not to blame for that kind of design.

 

I dont agree that fans REQUIRE beautiful cars, in football if you support a team and they get a player you dont like, it doesnt mean you'll stop supporting them, does it?

[PayasYouRace]

If anything the comparison is like expecting all the players in the football team to be particularly handsome men.

[Disgrace]

Lest we forget we are talking about cars. The cars' looks are very much in the hands of the rule makers. There are hardly going to be FIFA breeding programs to create handsome footballers.

Edited by Disgrace, 02 January 2014 - 15:55.

[SealTheDiffuser]

I think we have already a thread for this: http://forums.autosp...ly-tree-merged/

[Lazy]

Lest we forget we are talking about cars. The cars' looks are very much in the hands of the rule makers. There are hardly going to be FIFA breeding programs to create handsome footballers.

You don't think some of last years cars were better looking than others?

 

Cars looks are in the hands of the designers.

[Tenmantaylor]

You don't think some of last years cars were better looking than others?

 

Cars looks are in the hands of the designers.

 

True, but designers are tasked on objective performance metrics, not subjective looks. If a designer can make a fast car look beautiful then kudos to him but I'm sure Mr. F1 Technical Director would not be happy if his aerodynamicists were spending valuable iterative analysis time sketching out beautiful automotive concept renders.

 

The low(ish) nosed McLaren of early 2012 was probably the most aesthetically pleasing of the 09-13 aero era but it had to undergo a radical overhaul with a pragmatic change in aero philosophy featuring a new higher, uglier nose to try and develop at the same rate as the competition. This was a shame as it won the opener and looked good doing it amongst the platypuses and alligators. That car was probably closer in philosophy to next years cars than 2012's cars. The secret McLaren fan in me says this may give them an edge but the cynic in me says it probably won't be so given all the other changes going on.

[Lazy]

True, but designers are tasked on objective performance metrics, not subjective looks.

Aesthetics are very low on my list of priorities for an F1 car tbh.

[demet06]

My understanding was they lowered the nose to protect the drivers in a T Bone accident as the high nose could possibly take his head off!

[Disgrace]

 

Aesthetics are very low on my list of priorities for an F1 car tbh.

 

Sure, I'm only really echoing what Scarbs said in the thread linked above, that this is a really dumb situation. It's just a needless kick in the teeth. It shouldn't need to be rocket science to have well-written rules, but these are the same rule-writers that managed to conjure up with a green flag scenario where you couldn't race (Monaco 2010).

Edited by Disgrace, 02 January 2014 - 18:43.

[Tapz63]

J
My understanding was they lowered the nose to protect the drivers in a T Bone accident as the high nose could possibly take his head off!

I've heard a few people say that, but how exactly would a lower nose help? The nose would seem to be only a problem if it gets up over the car, in which case it doesn't matter how low it is as far as I can see, as it would be the bottom of the nose hitting you not the top.

[Doughnut King]

When is the first car going to be unveiled? Any dates?

[HammyHamiltonFan]

When is the first car going to be unveiled? Any dates?

 

don't think any have been announced yet, they normally have most of them in February though, some might go early and show in late January, but given the regulation changes I think it's more likely that we will see most in mid-late February and early March.

[Shiroo]

don't think any have been announced yet, they normally have most of them in February though, some might go early and show in late January, but given the regulation changes I think it's more likely that we will see most in mid-late February and early March.

 

but first test is in January.

[Lazy]

 

 

 

 

Sure, I'm only really echoing what Scarbs said in the thread linked above, that this is a really dumb situation. It's just a needless kick in the teeth. It shouldn't need to be rocket science to have well-written rules, but these are the same rule-writers that managed to conjure up with a green flag scenario where you couldn't race (Monaco 2010).

 

I think it you actually had to sit down and write the rules you'd soon feel differently about that.

[Andy35]

[S3baman]

I've been calling this a finger nose, I know 3-4 teams will definitley run it.  The low nose tip was to reduce flip over accidents, where the nose hits the rear tyre of another car. 

As drawn Piola's nose is very narrow at the tip, in fact it will actually be some 9.5cm x 9.5cm, so the spear effect will not be an issue.

 

With all the wing reductions for next year, might we see a return to a lower downforce setup for the higher speeds tracks or will the teams still run as much wing as possible for corner speed and then use a mix of DRS and KERS in combination with a higher top gear ratio for passing? I would love to see the rear end slide coming out of the corners especially now that the turbo engines have a lot more torque.

[mlsnoopy]

When is the first car going to be unveiled? Any dates?

 

McLaren on the 25th of january. 

[S3baman]

In my opinion, most people still find them very ugly and are cherishing the day beautiful cars enter F1 again.

 

I for one miss the early 2000 cars. Very simple lines, slim wings, the aero effect was there but it wasn't the determining factor. Cars were sliding even with TC fully on. Ever since 2009, I haven't seen one beautiful car. 2012 Macca had some nice lines with the low nose, but the wings are still disproportionate. Will be interesting to see how the reduced width of the front wing impacts the looks for this year.

[Miggeex]

If the nose would be like the one in the video, I wouldn't mind. Looks pretty aggressive and that fits better/more smoothly that I expected. 

 

The thing is though that it's just a prediction of what could happen. But that would be WAY more better than that "not so smooth di*k nose" that was discussed in the other thread earlier.

 

But I'd be preparing myself for something very weird. 

 

There will always be something in these cars that some people won't like 

[CoolBreeze]

Spear noses? Looks like limp p3nis, to be honest. 

 

That aside, it could be potentially a safety issue, should there be a pile up etc. 

[Disgrace]

I think it you actually had to sit down and write the rules you'd soon feel differently about that.

 

Come on, I think we're beyond the "but you're not an F1 driver" style argument. Look at this:

 

 

As soon as the regs were released the loopholes were there to be seen, finding ways to get a high nose with a legal low nose tip.  I sat down with a Herts Uni student way back in May and we had both independently come to similar 'legality nose tip' designs, we never thought they'd get that far.  We thought surely a clarification from Charlie would stop this, but it didn't.  I knew for certain about 6 weeks ago this would be the direction for many teams.

 

I've posted simple interpretations of the new regs based on current design.  But I don't tend to publish new season 'prediction' stuff, until after the seasons end.  The Autosport guys wanted something to follow up on the recent TD "ugly" comments on the subject, hence it comes out now.

 

I've not even got started on the potential in the rules for other nose interpretations, loopholes for a high chassis and exhaust blown solutions in 2014

 

There was clearly an opportunity to avoid these noses.

[PayasYouRace]

I'd like to know why they couldn't just write a regulation that said no bodywork must be above a plane that begins at the top of the front chassis bulkhead and extends forwards at a particular angle until it intersects the reference plane. What am I missing?

[Zava]

the difference to Scarbs' drawing is that it has the pylons on the cock, rather than the "old" nose. this way, it doesn't look that bad at all, gives some purpose to the nose tip too.

 

edit: though I'm not sure this is a better route, as the big "old" nose pylons had something to do with accelerating the airflow to the back (see ferrari's enormous pylons for example)

Edited by Zava, 03 January 2014 - 13:01.

[demet06]

I've heard a few people say that, but how exactly would a lower nose help? The nose would seem to be only a problem if it gets up over the car, in which case it doesn't matter how low it is as far as I can see, as it would be the bottom of the nose hitting you not the top.

 

 

Last season, the cars noses were almost as high as the sidepods. They wouldn't need to be much off the ground to hit the driver's helmet, whereas with the lower nose, the cars would have to be much higher off the ground to hit the driver. Its just a bigger safety margin.