37 replies to this topic

[GrumpyYoungMan]

What is wrong with the Mercedes nose? Surely it is a neater solution to the Ferrari nose and all the other solutions seen this year!?

 

Lastly the rules prevent super short noses as used by Mercedes this year.

The way the new rules are worded means teams will most likely opt for a solution similar to the current Ferrari.

 

Source: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/114548

[OO7]

What is wrong with the Mercedes nose? Surely it is a neater solution to the Ferrari nose and all the other solutions seen this year!?

 

The Ferrari has one of the ugliest noses, but I think when the article mentions the Ferrari solution potentially being the most favourable for 2015, I believe this is in reference to the nose tip and not the sunken main body of the nose.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

The Ferrari has one of the ugliest noses, but I think when the article mentions the Ferrari solution potentially being the most favourable for 2015, I believe this is in reference to the nose tip and not the sunken main body of the nose.

That does make more sense as I have a feeling that the Mercedes style was the intented solution to happen by the rules...

[TF110]

They wont allow the "snub nose" of the mercedes. So itll probably go back to the iteration in the beginning of this season.

[OO7]

The nose tip will have to comply with more ridged crash test regulations which may also have a notable impact on the design solutions teams select, considering the setback Mercedes faced in developing their current, short nose.

[CoolBreeze]

And then they start having meetings for cost cuttings....they can't even have 1 stable rule for 1 year..

[eronrules]

one simple solution to all nose job problems ....

 

go back to flat cockpit days of the 80s and early 90s. eversince they raised the cockpit, the neverending quest to channel more air under the body began and ruined the beauty of the car.

 

just extend the floor plank up to the nose and mandate an unbroken surface and no channels. if DW12 can do it, so can modern F1.

[SanDiegoGo]

The way the new rules are worded means teams will most likely opt for a solution similar to the current Ferrari.

 

that literally sent shivers down my spine. imagine a grid full of those monstrosities.

[Jejking]

This sport is never gonna help itself, or is it?

[superdelphinus]

This thread isn't offering me what the title suggested

[PayasYouRace]

This is obviously intended to avoid the Anne Summers noses, but I think they're overcomplicating it.

 

All the need to do is define a plane starting at the top of the front bulkhead and sloping down towards the reference plane ahead of the car which no bodywork may protrude above.

 

 

one simple solution to all nose job problems ....

 

go back to flat cockpit days of the 80s and early 90s. eversince they raised the cockpit, the neverending quest to channel more air under the body began and ruined the beauty of the car.

 

just extend the floor plank up to the nose and mandate an unbroken surface and no channels. if DW12 can do it, so can modern F1.

 

The DW12 is not like that. It has a raised nose and the floor starts under the cockpit.

[Henri Greuter]

This is obviously intended to avoid the Anne Summers noses, but I think they're overcomplicating it.

 

All the need to do is define a plane starting at the top of the front bulkhead and sloping down towards the reference plane ahead of the car which no bodywork may protrude above.

 

 

 

The DW12 is not like that. It has a raised nose and the floor starts under the cockpit.

 

But it doesn't have that undercut  with tea tray below the legs of the drivers who are forced to sit in a most unusual condition.

 

For whatever reasons FIA still hangs on to allowing those rediculous trade marks while with outlawing it they erase or at least reduce a number of problems F1 is dealing with now.

 

I fully agree with Eronrules'suggestion, have written it down here in several threads over the years already, Get rid of that raised nose for starters! Or at least don't allow undercuts and tea trays under the drivers legs anymore!

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 21 June 2014 - 08:24.

[Henri Greuter]

This thread isn't offering me what the title suggested

 

 

I think you might be surprised to find out how many people think that F1 isn't offering what the name suggests anymore.....

 

Henri

[PayasYouRace]

But it doesn't have that undercut  with tea tray below the legs of the drivers who are forced to sit in a most unusual condition.

 

For whatever reasons FIA still hangs on to allowing those rediculous trade marks while with outlawing it they erase or at least reduce a number of problems F1 is dealing with now.

 

I fully agree with Eronrules'suggestion, have written it down here in several threads over the years already, Get rid of that raised nose for starters! Or at least don't allow undercuts and tea trays under the drivers legs anymore!

 

 

Henri

 

Explain.

 

I'd say most of F1's problems right now come from sporting, not technical rulings.

 

Secondly, if we're trying to get rid of the ugly noses, the tea-tray section has nothing to do with it.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 21 June 2014 - 08:59.

[Tommay]

FIA are useless.

We've created a bad rule, the teams have come up with their solution and we've come out with the force India penis nose, then we've got what ever we want too call the Caterham, twin noses, and the one considered worse by many fans! The Ferrari!

But wait, a clever team called Mercedes have found the best solution areodynamicly and aesthetically! Well this is great we could let the teams naturally evolve to there's or tweak the rules to favour that.

Nahh instead we'll go for the Ferrari one because their red and that's cool

Edited by Tommay, 21 June 2014 - 09:25.

[DutchQuicksilver]

No way they are going for a Ferrari type nose, they want to get rid of ugly noses and the Ferrari is certainly an ugly one.

I'm expecting (and hoping) more something like this

 

[Kristian]

I actualy liked the variety of noses this season; sure I laughed when the cars were launched, but I'm used to it now, and all cars have a unique look to them. 

 

Now there's going to be more restrictions, that somehow means despite low noses they will all be butt ugly (despite some of the most beautiful cars ever being low nose design), and we wonder why the likes of Adrian Newey are being driven away... 

[Henri Greuter]

Explain.

 

I'd say most of F1's problems right now come from sporting, not technical rulings.

 

Secondly, if we're trying to get rid of the ugly noses, the tea-tray section has nothing to do with it.

 

 

I'm an a bit surprised you haven't worked this one out for yourself.

 

Many of the problems with the current cars are related with aero: the massive downforce levels generated by the cars. And the turbulence behind the cars vecause of all that aero what makes following a car close so difficult.

The high noses and undercut in the monocoque contribute a lot to this problem, first of all by generating downforce on their own, secondly by how the airflow is directed to the sidepods which has its effects on how efficiendt these pods become, as well as how they enhance the working of diffusers and rear wings.

 

Take away that undercut, tea tray etc below the cockpit and you'll massively reduce the manner how the arflow can be optimised for both the sidepods and the rear part of the car.

I know it is a nightmare for the engineers/designers but I really wished they would mandate flat monocoque bottoms so we would see the Pre-1990 kind of noses again.

And also find a manner to destroy the efficiency of the rear wings by intruducing massive side pods again, filled with a lot of equipment for the engine again, like we saw in the turbo years. If the (single) turbo had not been used to generate electric energy then , with a V6 engine, there could have been the option to use twinturbos again. Which have to go into the sidepods, together with radiators etc...

Have a look at the sidepod design of the turbocharged Renault F1 wingcars of 1980-1982 (and the 1983 and 1984 cars)

 

I don't know how I can ask you this without words that might be misunderstood for intention. But believe me, no offence intended when I ask you, do you understand what I meant with my comment now?

 

Henri

[sopa]

Based on how things usually work out, FIA bans one thing, but this will lead to the development of something even more ugly after that...

 

FIA "wanted to ban stepped noses" and see what we got fo 2014.

 

So don't count your chickens yet...

 

Though what could possibly be even more ugly than 2014 noses...  Ugh, I think I don't want to know.

[Exb]

So how much of an advantage does this give to Ferrari if the other teams are going to have to change their aero concepts whereas Ferrari can just improve theirs, or won't it make too much of a difference?

I have read through the new rules, I struggle to picture exactly what they mean (I'd never make a designer) so have to take the author at their word but I really hope it doesn't mean they all end up looking like the Ferrari, which is the worst looking car apart from the Caterham and Lotus in my opinion. Hopefully they will be more like the launch-spec Merc before they changed their nose.

[Zava]

No way they are going for a Ferrari type nose, they want to get rid of ugly noses and the Ferrari is certainly an ugly one.

I'm expecting (and hoping) more something like this

 

I was hoping for that for this year already

[Tourgott]

Wait, they want to get rid of ugly noses and then they make the regulations so that the noses will look like the Ferrari one?

Oh dear, FIA.

[pdac]

I really don't understand the mindset of these people. At a time when everyone is concerned about costs, they want to change the rules just because of the way something looks. Madness.

[johnmhinds]

I thought the nose was lowered for safety reasons?

 

Why should the FIA care how it looks as long as the design is deemed to be safe.

[eronrules]

 

The DW12 is not like that. It has a raised nose and the floor starts under the cockpit.

actually, i was trying to say the exact thing you posted, since F1 noses are detachable, the plank must extend to the front bulkhead, with drivers sitting upright, rather than lying in a bathtub. 

 

i also think, this might actually improve racing, we've heard this over and over again how drivers don't see much out of the cockpit, yet whenever they driver classic and historic cars, they always points out how good the visibility is. that's perhaps also a good reason why indycar is so competitive and have much more wheel to wheel racing compared to F1. Barber park race this year was awesome. 

[RealRacing]

The Mercedes is the best looking car this year and they think the cars will look more like the Ferrari?

[PayasYouRace]

I'm an a bit surprised you haven't worked this one out for yourself.

 

Many of the problems with the current cars are related with aero: the massive downforce levels generated by the cars. And the turbulence behind the cars vecause of all that aero what makes following a car close so difficult.

The high noses and undercut in the monocoque contribute a lot to this problem, first of all by generating downforce on their own, secondly by how the airflow is directed to the sidepods which has its effects on how efficiendt these pods become, as well as how they enhance the working of diffusers and rear wings.

 

Take away that undercut, tea tray etc below the cockpit and you'll massively reduce the manner how the arflow can be optimised for both the sidepods and the rear part of the car.

I know it is a nightmare for the engineers/designers but I really wished they would mandate flat monocoque bottoms so we would see the Pre-1990 kind of noses again.

And also find a manner to destroy the efficiency of the rear wings by intruducing massive side pods again, filled with a lot of equipment for the engine again, like we saw in the turbo years. If the (single) turbo had not been used to generate electric energy then , with a V6 engine, there could have been the option to use twinturbos again. Which have to go into the sidepods, together with radiators etc...

Have a look at the sidepod design of the turbocharged Renault F1 wingcars of 1980-1982 (and the 1983 and 1984 cars)

 

I don't know how I can ask you this without words that might be misunderstood for intention. But believe me, no offence intended when I ask you, do you understand what I meant with my comment now?

 

Henri

 

You're overplaying the role of the tea tray area, I think. I don't specifically object to reducing it as an overall reduction in downforce, but it's not the biggest problem on the cars.

 

However, the best thing to do is limit the height of the front bulkhead (as this year) and then just set a maximum height of bodywork in front of it, by means of a sloping plane. It would allow the designers a bit more freedom.

 

actually, i was trying to say the exact thing you posted, since F1 noses are detachable, the plank must extend to the front bulkhead, with drivers sitting upright, rather than lying in a bathtub. 

 

i also think, this might actually improve racing, we've heard this over and over again how drivers don't see much out of the cockpit, yet whenever they driver classic and historic cars, they always points out how good the visibility is. that's perhaps also a good reason why indycar is so competitive and have much more wheel to wheel racing compared to F1. Barber park race this year was awesome. 

 

But the DW12's nose is a lot like an F1 car's. Obviously they don't have a plank and no tea tray, but the floor steps up under the driver's bottom, like in an F1 car, rather than at the front of the chassis. I'm not sure the DW12 has such an upright seating position, though a bit of work to improve visibility might not go amiss. But visibility is more to do with the safety features of the cockpit, so you won't see much more by lowering the drivers leg's a little.

[Henri Greuter]

You're overplaying the role of the tea tray area, I think. I don't specifically object to reducing it as an overall reduction in downforce, but it's not the biggest problem on the cars.

 

 

I think you are underestimating the effects of the tea tray and the undercut. If the effects were that minimal, then why did all teams come with such but-ugly solutions the get that nose top to the mandatory new height (or should I say lowth level) but still make the underside of the cockpit part of the monocoque as high as possible and as far behind the front axle line as possible? No matter how idiotic the seat position fo the drivers become?

 

Another benefit of the teatray and undercut being done and over with is all the suggestions and rumours going on about certain teams somehow making the front part of the thing flexing so that at speed it curls up a bit and they can run a bit lower and thus gain more efficiency of the front wing arrangements. No tea tray, no option to cheat, no suspicions anymore

As far as I can see, yet another reason to make rules that describe that at front axle line, the bulkhead mus be going up from bottom reference leve to a certain prescribed minimum and must be specified to a certain minimum width over the entire heigth of the car to prevent indents left and right from a narrow piece of bulkheat that goes to the bottom of the monocoque.

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 22 June 2014 - 14:55.

[PayasYouRace]

I think you are underestimating the effects of the tea tray and the undercut. If the effects were that minimal, then why did all teams come with such but-ugly solutions the get that nose top to the mandatory new height (or should I say lowth level) but still make the underside of the cockpit part of the monocoque as high as possible and as far behind the front axle line as possible? No matter how idiotic the seat position fo the drivers become?

 

Another benefit of the teatray and undercut being done and over with is all the suggestions and rumours going on about certain teams somehow making the front part of the thing flexing so that at speed it curls up a bit and they can run a bit lower and thus gain more efficiency of the front wing arrangements. No tea tray, no option to cheat, no suspicions anymore

As far as I can see, yet another reason to make rules that describe that at front axle line, the bulkhead mus be going up from bottom reference leve to a certain prescribed minimum and must be specified to a certain minimum width over the entire heigth of the car to prevent indents left and right from a narrow piece of bulkheat that goes to the bottom of the monocoque.

 

Henri

 

No, I'm not talking about the performance to be gained from that area. I'm talking about the effect it has on the "problem" of F1 you're talking about. It's not much worse than the wings themselves.

 

Now you're talking about silly seating positions, but that hasn't changed a great deal in a good decade at least. This year the front bulkhead is lower too. I'm sorry but that is something you seem to have just invented.

 

As for cheating, well that's just a matter of proper regulation.

 

I maintain that all you need to do is define a plane that no bodywork may protrude above. If it's lower, you won't get very large gaps under the chassis, and you won't get silly noses because you won't be defining any mandatory cross-sections.

[Henri Greuter]

No, I'm not talking about the performance to be gained from that area. I'm talking about the effect it has on the "problem" of F1 you're talking about. It's not much worse than the wings themselves.

 

Now you're talking about silly seating positions, but that hasn't changed a great deal in a good decade at least. This year the front bulkhead is lower too. I'm sorry but that is something you seem to have just invented.

 

As for cheating, well that's just a matter of proper regulation.

 

I maintain that all you need to do is define a plane that no bodywork may protrude above. If it's lower, you won't get very large gaps under the chassis, and you won't get silly noses because you won't be defining any mandatory cross-sections.

 

 

???????

 

We have a significant, decisive disagreement on interpretation about some problems within F1.

And/or a language problem too.

Time we may be on the same side but in totally opposite corners on that side.

 

 

Henri

[PayasYouRace]

Yeah I'm happy to leave it there because I'm not sure if we're getting anywhere now.

[scheivlak]

No way they are going for a Ferrari type nose, they want to get rid of ugly noses and the Ferrari is certainly an ugly one.

 

That Ferrari nose is iconc, it's a thing of beauty! 

[naiboz]

The Ferrari nose is actually one of the better ones

 

It's a bit roman, granted. That hump at the front of the chassis is where most of the aesthetic issue lies imo

 

If they lowered the front of the chassis on that car so there was a more fluid flow from the tip to the cockpit opening, it would be easily the best lookin car on the grid

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I actually think the Mercedes nose is the best looking solution for this year, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

[Jackmancer]

Colin Kolles used to be a dentist. Think he can do something about these noses? (specially the Caterham)

[Gorma]

Colin Kolles used to be a dentist. Think he can do something about these noses? (specially the Caterham)

Dentists work on teeth so I doubt that, but if there is a cavity that needs to be filled then his your man.

[chipmcdonald]

I just took it for granted "they" would make the regs next year force the noses to look better.  Not the Ferrari Hoover-snout.

 

Right?  I'm right, right?  Please?

[ElDictatore]

Tbh, I quite like the Ferrari nose, even though it's worse than the Merc or RB nose. It's still better than half of the grid.

 

I'll just wait till Scarbs or someone makes assumptions on how the noses most likely will look next year or what interpretations might arise.

 

No way they are going for a Ferrari type nose, they want to get rid of ugly noses and the Ferrari is certainly an ugly one.

I'm expecting (and hoping) more something like this

 

 

That would be quite neat but somehow I thought it would look like that this year. And we see how that ended.