179 replies to this topic

[Henri Greuter]

Voted ugly.
Disproportional long wheelbased and front ends that are rediculous and should be banned.
Drivers behind the front axle is perhaps safer but the proportions of the cars are rediculous
And in the past cars didn't need a device that helped one car to overtake another car because it is denied the use of that same devise.


Henri

[stewie]

Jeez, and to think people called this car ugly a couple of years ago....

 

[Rinehart]

Let me first say, I don't mind the new noses and love the variations.

 

But I'm intrigued by the objective behind the new rules. My understanding is that lower noses will stop cars launching off each other... Hum. Firstly Adrian Newey says this is actually more likely due to the "ramp" effect. Which is (a) seems fairly obvious and (b) surely something the most respected engineer in the pitlane would have mentioned 18 months ago to the powers that be??? But secondly, will they work anyway... I'm not sure how strong these things are but it looks to me like the appendages on the likes of the FI and Caterham will just snap off/deform - I'm guessing but the crash test isn't about measuring what the first few inches of the car will withstand surely???

[RealRacing]

So which "car" do you think has the largest penis: STR, FI or Caterham?

[PayasYouRace]

Let me first say, I don't mind the new noses and love the variations.

 

But I'm intrigued by the objective behind the new rules. My understanding is that lower noses will stop cars launching off each other... Hum. Firstly Adrian Newey says this is actually more likely due to the "ramp" effect. Which is (a) seems fairly obvious and (b) surely something the most respected engineer in the pitlane would have mentioned 18 months ago to the powers that be??? But secondly, will they work anyway... I'm not sure how strong these things are but it looks to me like the appendages on the likes of the FI and Caterham will just snap off/deform - I'm guessing but the crash test isn't about measuring what the first few inches of the car will withstand surely???

 

I find Adrian's comments curious because it was never an issue in the days of low noses. The FW14 in your avatar being a great example. I can't think of a single example of a car "submarining" under another in a rear end collision. Usually the nose would smash and in the old days, so would the driver's legs. Either that or the rear car would still launch over the gearbox of the front one. I can't think of when it was ever an issue, right up to 2008 when cars like the McLaren, Red Bull or BMW had similarly low noses.

 

I can appreciate that the rules have required odd ways to make the most of them which someone like Adrian might feel is a waste of time, but I really don't see it as a safety issue. What I can remember about when the rules were first proposed was that the lower nose would minimise the chances of a drivers' head being hit instead of the monocoque.

[Gridfire]

It is interesting that quite a few teams have opted for very plain liveries to test in - Caterham, Williams, McLaren - all single colour paintjobs. The RedBulls look positively garish in comparison ;)

[ezequiel]

They are ugly but at least they look  more different from each other in comparison to previous seasons.

[chipmcdonald]

 

chipmcdonald, on 26 Jan 2014 - 12:05, said:

As far as safety - again I'm going to reiterate, those designs are very apt to allowing a car to submarine under another, leading to the driver's head. 

Yeah because that happened all the time before 1990 

 

 

"I must admit, I am concerned that the opposite may now happen, that cars now submarine effectively. If you hit the back of a car square on then you go underneath and you end up with a rear crash structure in your face, which is a much worse scenario."  - Adrian Newey, today...

[P0inters]

Just had an idea , is it possible for the teams to have these penis noses to fall off by pressing a button ? They could make it look like they hit the back of another car and then just press a button to make it fall off and get a higher nose. 

[juicy sushi]

The whole point was that the high nose had the potential to puncture the tub, or just go over the top and nearly decapitate the driver, as nearly happened on more than one occasion.  Now people bring up a submarining concern which, while understandable, never actually occurred during race conditions in the roughly 30 seasons in which cars previously had low noses.

 

I am not saying it is impossible.  Just that such an incident looks to be a very low probability event.

[midgrid]

I find Adrian's comments curious because it was never an issue in the days of low noses. The FW14 in your avatar being a great example. I can't think of a single example of a car "submarining" under another in a rear end collision. Usually the nose would smash and in the old days, so would the driver's legs. Either that or the rear car would still launch over the gearbox of the front one. I can't think of when it was ever an issue, right up to 2008 when cars like the McLaren, Red Bull or BMW had similarly low noses.

 

I can appreciate that the rules have required odd ways to make the most of them which someone like Adrian might feel is a waste of time, but I really don't see it as a safety issue. What I can remember about when the rules were first proposed was that the lower nose would minimise the chances of a drivers' head being hit instead of the monocoque.

 

This is the only incident that comes to mind, and I think the conditions had something to do with it:

 

[johnmhinds]

There have been a few lower formula crashes where a car has ended up on top of another cars cockpit, but those were all usually nose to nose incidents, not submarining under the crash structure.

[PayasYouRace]

"I must admit, I am concerned that the opposite may now happen, that cars now submarine effectively. If you hit the back of a car square on then you go underneath and you end up with a rear crash structure in your face, which is a much worse scenario."  - Adrian Newey, today...

 

Yeah and that statement seems a bit odd coming from him. Looking at history it's almost never happened, and you'd have to hit at quite a huge speed difference to force yourself that far under another car (without smashing your nose off I might add).

[ardbeg]

Yeah and that statement seems a bit odd coming from him. Looking at history it's almost never happened, and you'd have to hit at quite a huge speed difference to force yourself that far under another car (without smashing your nose off I might add).

That it "has never happened" does not mean much though, it all depends on the height of the front wing in relation to the design of the rear and, last but not least, the strength of the nose itself. I am sure Adrian Newey want regulations to change in a direction that suits him, but then on the other hand - when he speaks we should listen. We do not have to take his word for it, but I'd rather take his than mine any day.

[George Costanza]

Apart from the noses and FW, it's all right.

 

But it is still a far cry from say, Ferrari F399.

[LH08WDC]

Let me first say, I don't mind the new noses and love the variations.

 

But I'm intrigued by the objective behind the new rules. My understanding is that lower noses will stop cars launching off each other... Hum. Firstly Adrian Newey says this is actually more likely due to the "ramp" effect. Which is (a) seems fairly obvious and (b) surely something the most respected engineer in the pitlane would have mentioned 18 months ago to the powers that be??? But secondly, will they work anyway... I'm not sure how strong these things are but it looks to me like the appendages on the likes of the FI and Caterham will just snap off/deform - I'm guessing but the crash test isn't about measuring what the first few inches of the car will withstand surely???

Speaking of the ramp effect, isn't that why the regulations shifted to higher noses in 2012? I thought after Schumacher's nasty Abu Dhabi 2010 crash the FIA wanted higher noses to prevent these types of accidents. And now we're switching back?

 

Edited by LH08WDC, 29 January 2014 - 00:52.

[sheogorath]

A FIA representative inspects one of the cars at Parc fermé 

 

[lbennie]

Oh my lol

[PayasYouRace]

That it "has never happened" does not mean much though, it all depends on the height of the front wing in relation to the design of the rear and, last but not least, the strength of the nose itself. I am sure Adrian Newey want regulations to change in a direction that suits him, but then on the other hand - when he speaks we should listen. We do not have to take his word for it, but I'd rather take his than mine any day.

 

The problem is I usually see the reasoning in what he says, but this one just seems odd to me. I agree that not happening before isn't a reason to reject it outright, but we have a very large sample size with different regulations and much more exposed drivers. It doesn't make sense that the new noses are going to be so strong that they'll stay intact enough to allow a car to ride up onto the monocoque, and they're not as low as some of the stuff from the 80s and 90s where the monocoque went right to the nose (and the wing was mounted on the tip) which would much more easily get under another car's gearbox. The drivers are also much further back and submerged compared to the old days. I think at the kind of relative speed you'd need to hit another car to submarine that far under it you'd be having a very serious accident whatever the nose configuration. There's very little chance of it happening at typical rear-ending speeds.

 

That's why I suspect there's more to his comments.

 

Speaking of the ramp effect, isn't that why the regulations shifted to higher noses in 2012? I thought after Schumacher's nasty Abu Dhabi 2010 crash the FIA wanted higher noses to prevent these types of accidents. And now we're switching back?

 

 

The regulations shifted to lower noses in 2012. That's why we had the step, don't you remember The reason they're making the noses lower is to reduce the chance of that happening. Notice that Liuzzi didn't ride up Schumacher's nose, but over his front wheel, helped by his nose being higher than the centre of the wheel.

[chipmcdonald]

Yeah and that statement seems a bit odd coming from him. Looking at history it's almost never happened, and you'd have to hit at quite a huge speed difference to force yourself that far under another car (without smashing your nose off I might add).

 

 "It's almost never happened" doesn't really make sense as a defense against my suggestion it's dangerous, when the given reason for having it low - "the nose might puncture the monocoque in a side impact", "the driver's head might be impacted" ALSO HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

 

 

 But on the "it has never happened before" notion, we have not had low noses in an era of F1 racing where safety is almost taken for granted.  Independent of that, we've had how many years with high noses since?  So you 're jumping from a marginal-impact safety period to now, with a completely different mode of aggressive driving.

 

 That also does not take into account non-car collisions.  What if Lewis had speared straight into the tire barrier yesterday?  If given the choice, would he prefer flying headlong into a stack of tires in the car he was in, or a 2013 chassis with a high nose?   I know which one I would pick...

 

 I'll take it further: at high speeds in a situation where the car is out of control (ala Kubica at Montreal, for example) with the nose at a lower point relative to the direction of travel, you now have two problems: a greater pitch angle, and in a circumstance where the car has lost control missing a wheel, the chance of the nose catching an elevated surface (chicane on a crest) is greater. 

 

AND...

 

 Of those situations, the loss-of-control incident angle collision with a wall becomes exacerbated by some of the designs.  Most particularly the Caterham - if it loses it's wing, it doesn't matter that it's phallus works on a head on impact test, that proboscis is going to snap off.  It's not going to ablate or absorb anything, it's going to go away leaving the chassis unprotected.  Not only that, but if one of it's wheels gets knocked off, the phallus goes away, it's going to dig in and start rolling.

 

 F1 had managed to get the cars evolved to a very safe design in the front IMO, with what amounted to a large square crossection that dissipated energy from wide angles.   The cockpit intrusion problem should be solved with a canopy - I'll point out AGAIN, we've had closer calls with the under tray scything someone's head off than the nose, and changing the nose obviously does nothing to prevent intrustion by "inadvertant" objects (suspension pieces, wheels, springs, etc.).

[PayasYouRace]

 "It's almost never happened" doesn't really make sense as a defense against my suggestion it's dangerous, when the given reason for having it low - "the nose might puncture the monocoque in a side impact", "the driver's head might be impacted" ALSO HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

 

 

Drivers' heads have been very close to being hit or indeed have been hit by cars flying over them. Martin Brundle famously had a tyre mark on his helmet from Tambay's Lola.

 

The nose is designed to shatter rather than puncture the monocoque. It would be no different to last year's noses, except this year it's more likely that the nose will hit the monocoque (safer) than the driver (not so safe).

 

 

 But on the "it has never happened before" notion, we have not had low noses in an era of F1 racing where safety is almost taken for granted.  Independent of that, we've had how many years with high noses since?  So you 're jumping from a marginal-impact safety period to now, with a completely different mode of aggressive driving.

 

 That also does not take into account non-car collisions.  What if Lewis had speared straight into the tire barrier yesterday?  If given the choice, would he prefer flying headlong into a stack of tires in the car he was in, or a 2013 chassis with a high nose?   I know which one I would pick...

 

 

It's not an unreasonable jump. The old low nose cars had lower noses and chassis, with drivers more exposed and closer to the front. The aggressiveness of the driving is irrelevant. You can have a 200 mph accident when you're being cautious.

 

Lewis did spear straight into the tire barrier yesterday. Which one would you pick? Last year's? What makes you say that?

 

 

 

 I'll take it further: at high speeds in a situation where the car is out of control (ala Kubica at Montreal, for example) with the nose at a lower point relative to the direction of travel, you now have two problems: a greater pitch angle, and in a circumstance where the car has lost control missing a wheel, the chance of the nose catching an elevated surface (chicane on a crest) is greater. 

 

AND...

 

 Of those situations, the loss-of-control incident angle collision with a wall becomes exacerbated by some of the designs.  Most particularly the Caterham - if it loses it's wing, it doesn't matter that it's phallus works on a head on impact test, that proboscis is going to snap off.  It's not going to ablate or absorb anything, it's going to go away leaving the chassis unprotected.  Not only that, but if one of it's wheels gets knocked off, the phallus goes away, it's going to dig in and start rolling.

 

 F1 had managed to get the cars evolved to a very safe design in the front IMO, with what amounted to a large square crossection that dissipated energy from wide angles.   The cockpit intrusion problem should be solved with a canopy - I'll point out AGAIN, we've had closer calls with the under tray scything someone's head off than the nose, and changing the nose obviously does nothing to prevent intrustion by "inadvertant" objects (suspension pieces, wheels, springs, etc.).

 

When you're dealing with such extreme situations then you have to remember that a few cm in nose height isn't going to make a great deal of difference. For example, the Caterham nose is skinnier, but what makes you think a fatter nose like last year's is going to provide any extra protection in an angled impact? Carbon fibre structures are built up to give strength in the direction it's needed. It's why you could probably kick through an F1 car's suspension.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 29 January 2014 - 09:58.

[chipmcdonald]

The regulations shifted to lower noses in 2012. That's why we had the step, don't you remember The reason they're making the noses lower is to reduce the chance of that happening. Notice that Liuzzi didn't ride up Schumacher's nose, but over his front wheel, helped by his nose being higher than the centre of the wheel.

 

 But the contrary to this would be that if Liuzzi had been in one of the snout-proboscis noses, striking between the chassis and wheel could mean that while Schumacher would be out of trouble, then Liuzzi could have submarined diagonally under Schumacher's car.  A big difference being with the old design the suspended-wing assembly acted as a crash structure, with a phallus design there isn't anything slowing an object down going over the top.

 

..... but that is one hypothetical scenario.  I'd rather race in a 2013 chassis with a canopy than what they will have on track this year.  In the grand scheme of things the FIA head-on crash test is really a very primitive assessment of survivability, IMO they should have mockups of chassis crashing into other chassis, as well as things like tire barriers. 

 

IN FACT - the perfectly straight-head on collision is pretty rare, and when it happens it's almost always accompanied by the collapse of the wing structure or tires.  Which means, with the 2014 designs, a car heading into another car will have it's nose *on the ground*, like a high speed shovel.

 

 

 Sorry, I think it's completely misguided and reckless. 

[chipmcdonald]

Drivers' heads have been very close to being hit or indeed have been hit by cars flying over them. Martin Brundle famously had a tyre mark on his helmet from Tambay's Lola.

 

 What sense does it make to cite that driver's heads have "always been very close to being hit", but then make a case for altering a design based on prventing a situation that has never occured?

 

 The aggressiveness of the drivers is all important.  If drivers were as aggressive in 1994 as they are today, we may have an example of a car submarining in a turn-1 crash.

 

As far as Lewis' crash is concerned - you miss the point, obviously he's ok.  But look at the shot of his car with the nose in the barrier; he lost control a fairly long ways out and the speed wasn't that great, the car would have continued into the barrier the faster it went.  Last year and previous year's cars had an almost straight line from the nose to the driver; you've still got the wing mounts sticking down, and when the tire barrier comes up to meet the wheels the inclination of the cockpit would tend to be perpendicular.  Bounce a 2014 car at high speed into a tire barrier, it's going to pitch up as it goes in thanks to the shovel/awl effect.

 

 Now, it may turn out it pitches the cars up so drastically it pegs it before the car can go in.  That may be better, maybe not. But that gets back to the effect I describe above, in an angular impact these noses are going to be useless I think.

 

Caterham nose:  it's simple mechanics.  1, when the tip contacts a wall/object at an angle, the center of mass will be above that point rather than in line with it.   Which means deflection.  If the center of mass is inline with it - the nose has popped up for some reason - then cross sectional strength comes into play, where how narrow it is, as well as being smaller at the point where the nose crosses the plane of the front of the tires, means all things being equal - it's not going to be as strong.  Laying up CF so that nozzle can take on a direct head-on impact almost guarantees that for the phallus noses they're going to be weaker diagonally - they're smaller in cross section. The proboscis snaps off.  Maybe not, I hope I'm wrong.

 

Putting all of your eggs in a "engineer for the ideal head on collision" basket is a mistake with these phallus noses in diagonal impacts IMO. 

[PayasYouRace]

 What sense does it make to cite that driver's heads have "always been very close to being hit", but then make a case for altering a design based on prventing a situation that has never occured?

 

I didn't say always. Please don't misquote me.

 

Now maybe it's because you've done nothing but bitch about everything new this year at every opportunity, but I don't see the point in continuing this discussion when I've already laid out my reasoning.

 

Edit: I'll lay out my understanding of the move to lower noses.

 

1. The lower nose is less likely to ride up and hit another driver's head in a head on or side on impact. That makes sense to me.

 

2. The lower nose is less likely to cause a car to flip in a rear end impact. Again, makes sense.

 

3. In a rear end impact some are concerned that the impactor may submarine under the impactee enough that his head will contact the gearbox. I don't think this makes sense and history with more dangerous cars indicates that my scepticism is justified. A T1 crash is unlikely to produce the speed difference required, no matter how aggressive the drivers are. It would have to be a fast moving car hitting a slow or stationary car, which is always going to be bad.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 29 January 2014 - 10:55.

[dau]

 [...]

 

Caterham nose:  it's simple mechanics.  1, when the tip contacts a wall/object at an angle, the center of mass will be above that point rather than in line with it.   Which means deflection.  If the center of mass is inline with it - the nose has popped up for some reason - then cross sectional strength comes into play, where how narrow it is, as well as being smaller at the point where the nose crosses the plane of the front of the tires, means all things being equal - it's not going to be as strong.  Laying up CF so that nozzle can take on a direct head-on impact almost guarantees that for the phallus noses they're going to be weaker diagonally - they're smaller in cross section. The proboscis snaps off.  Maybe not, I hope I'm wrong.

 

Putting all of your eggs in a "engineer for the ideal head on collision" basket is a mistake with these phallus noses in diagonal impacts IMO. 

 

There's a push off test to ensure the nose will not just 'snap off'.

 

18.6 Nose push off test : 

 During the test the survival cell must be resting on a flat plate and secured to it solidly but not in a way that could increase the strength of the attachments being tested.  A constant transversal horizontal load of 40.0kN must then be applied to one side of the impact absorbing structure, using a pad identical to the ones used in the lateral tests in Article 18.2.1, at a point 550mm from the front wheel axis.  The centre of area of the pad must pass through the plane mentioned above and the mid point of the height of the structure at the relevant section. After 30 seconds of application, there must be no failure of the structure or of any attachment between the structure and the survival cell. 

[chipmcdonald]

 

There's a push off test to ensure the nose will not just 'snap off'.

 

 

 

I don't believe that puts the force on the tip of the nose, and 40kn/30 seconds is not really the same as a 150mph+ impact, which should probably be represented in Joules I think.  I think that's about the equivalent of the car supporting itself from that point for about 2 minutes, or 4 cars for 30 seconds?

Edited by chipmcdonald, 29 January 2014 - 12:45.

[Tenmantaylor]

Has anyone seen comments from the drivers who've been testing referring to how the cars are to drive? We heard comments from Button and Magnussen that the 2014 car felt much more difficult to drive in the simulator due to a) increased torque from the turbo and b) reduced down force. Wondering how this is correlating into real life.

[dau]

I don't believe that puts the force on the tip of the nose, and 40kn/30 seconds is not really the same as a 150mph+ impact, which should probably be represented in Joules I think.  I think that's about the equivalent of the car supporting itself from that point for about 2 minutes, or 4 cars for 30 seconds?

40kN is equal to a weight of 4 tons, or the force needed to decelerate a 691kg F1 car with about 6g, if you want to have a more dynamic example. But that would be a 90° hit to the nose, which will never have any relevance. However, it will be relevant for the layup of the crash structure, which will have to take this test into account and can not just be designed for 0° hits. You are just speculating.

[blackmme]

I voted beautiful but I fully understand why people would consider them ugly!

 

I guess rather than beautiful I consider all the different approaches and solutions extremely interesting.  It's not going to last long anyway (one season) one of the solutions will be optimal and the FIA will refine the rules to make it aesthetically pleasing so I am 'enjoying' it while I can.

 

For me an F1 car will always be beautiful, form following function and the function being to go as fast as possible within and up to the constraints of the rule book.

There is always a reaction to the new, I wouldn't say that Caterhams nose is that much more ugly than the Ligier JS5's air intake from 1976 and compared to the 'Flat Bottom' Toleman TG183 of 1983 they are both quite the looker (and I really liked that car).  

 

1983 is actually quite a good parallel, a huge variety of different approaches from the conventional (Renault RE30C) to the unconventional (the Toleman) to the radical ( the extremely elegant Brabham BT52) the radical won out in 1983, who's the most radical this year?

By 1984 the optimal shape and design started to emerge and by 85 shapes were pretty similar in terms of front wings, side pods and rear wings.

 

So I am really enjoying it while I can.

 

Regards Mike

 

(edited I got the Ligier's type number wrong initially).

Edited by blackmme, 30 January 2014 - 09:40.

[kraduk]

That it "has never happened" does not mean much though, it all depends on the height of the front wing in relation to the design of the rear and, last but not least, the strength of the nose itself. I am sure Adrian Newey want regulations to change in a direction that suits him, but then on the other hand - when he speaks we should listen. We do not have to take his word for it, but I'd rather take his than mine any day.

 

I disagree, sure it doesnt mean I wont happen, and it wont be bad if it did happen. But the fact that it hasnt happened a lot indicates that it is less likely to happen then the car launching itself, which we have seen happen a lot. Its all about playing the odds