50 replies to this topic

[Giz]

In yet another case of F1 not knowing what it wants there are now calls for noses to be raised again following several accidents this year with cars going under either another car or a barrier.

Noses were originally lowered for aesthetic reasons and to stop cars flipping and or spearing each other.

So which is the lesser of the 2 evils? Or what's the next best plan?

[Frank Tuesday]

If both have safety concerns, go with the one that looks better: low.

[Atreiu]

Low noses.

FFS.

[Marklar]

High noses are looking sh*t, low have safety issues, so Im going for the middle.

[OO7]

Nice thread Giz.

 

I think a made a mistake and voted for high noses instead of low noses!  Is there any way to change that?

[Imateria]

I liked Gary Anderson's suggestion of raising them slightly to be in line with the rear crash structure, solves the submarining problem without having the supper high noses of a few years ago.

[Giz]

Nice thread Giz.

I think a made a mistake and voted for high noses instead of low noses! Is there any way to change that?

I'll vote low for you, it balances it out at least

[Mat13]

MP4-27 noses all round, please. The low nose rules were solving a problem that never existed, but low noses are better aesthetically (for me at least).

Edit: Ta-daa.

Edited by Mat13, 14 October 2015 - 18:04.

[Giz]

I'm actually surprised at this early stage that raising the noses seems to be the more popular opinion.

I started watching in the early 90s with low noses but apart from the really ugly noses we've had recently the aesthetics of high v low noses never really bothered me.

I thought the low nose layout was a more entrenched mindset of what people thought F1 should be

[Giz]

MP4-27 noses all round, please. The low nose rules were solving a problem that never existed, but low noses are better aesthetically (for me at least).

The '27 is a perfect example of neither up nor down, the grand old Duke of York would be proud

[Mat13]

The '27 is a perfect example of neither up nor down, the grand old Duke of York would be proud

Oh, you.

[Tourgott]

MP4-27 noses all round, please. The low nose rules were solving a problem that never existed, but low noses are better aesthetically (for me at least).

Edit: Ta-daa.

 

This was one of the best looking cars of all time, IMO.

[Marklar]

MP4-27 noses all round, please. The low nose rules were solving a problem that never existed, but low noses are better aesthetically (for me at least).

Edit: Ta-daa.

I'm still amazed how everyone else screwed their car so badly up that year and this car was just perfect AND fast.

[nosecone]

IMO the noses should be at the same level as the rear impact structure. It just makes sense

[ANF]

Given a choice between...

...high noses...



...middle noses...



...and low noses...



...I would like to see covered rear wheels.

[Fastcake]

This was one of the best looking cars of all time, IMO.

 

I'm not sure if I could be that bold, but MP4-27 was certainly one of the best looking cars of recent seasons.

 

...I would like to see covered rear wheels.
 

 

Oh god no. They're meant to be open-wheel race cars.

[ANF]

Oh god no. They're meant to be open-wheel race cars.

Well, they are meant to be cars, not aeroplanes...

[sosidge]

I don't have a video to hand but my recollection is that the Tecpro barrier did not seem to be flat on the ground before Sainz hit it. Correct installation of the barriers should be the first priority.

[Spillage]

I'd like to see decisions like that left up to the teams. Variety is more important to me than aesthetics.

[Garndell]

Somewhere in the middle like the MP4-27 or the MP4-14, like Gary says in line with the rear crash structure would work.

 

Am I the only one who saw the title and thought of Tenacious D - Wonderboy.

[Volcano70]

Middle

[HP]

Aesthetics; low, middle - high nose guesswork. Has anyone at FIA or elsewhere done their homework and provided some serious research? Pinnacle of motor sports (if it ever was). Pffff.

 

Sainz accident is something different than 2 cars ploughing into one another btw, So while I see GA's point, he muddled the issue.

 

I voted to get rid of the front wings, because they are less of a hazard in accidents. Non-existing front wings cannot cut rear tyres of other cars, less chances of SC cars because of debris, less chances of tyre explosions. If safety is the issue, getting rid of front wings IMO should be a non-brainer.

 

As for aesthetics, Opinions will differ anyway. Just to say, there was a time where they experimented with wings, and nobody doubted they were doing F1. Frank Williams comment on the walrus nose comes to mind: "If it's fast, it's beautiful".

[Atreiu]

Low nose.

 

http://www.wallpaper...cf19ccdacc6.jpg

 

/thread

[warp]

I'd like to see decisions like that left up to the teams. Variety is more important to me than aesthetics.

 

This... 

[Otaku]

This

[derstatic]

Gary Anderson seems to have a pretty logical idea in his article about noses this week. Makes 100% sense to align noses to rear and side crash structures to improve impact protection and reduce the risk of either running over or under another car. And obviosly we need to have barriers secured to the ground. Running under them like CS is not acceptable. He could just as well have banged his head on one of those barriers. 

[Scotracer]

Somewhere in the middle. Mid-2000s noses were pretty.

[Sash1]

Make them blunter and rounder. Not flat scoops. Too bad it screws aerodynamics.

[SenorSjon]

Nothing is to say a high nose would have kept the barriers in place. I think it makes absolutely no difference and Sainz would have still dug in. Other point is that the tarmac runoffs did absolutely nothing to reduce the impact speed of Sainz and Grosjean.

 

But you can expect all aero guys trying to force the high nose again.

[TheRacingElf]

Just put the nose and the rear crash structure on the wheel centre line, to me that seems the safest way of doing it. I'm actually surprised they didn't do that in the first place.

[hittheapex]

That's a great post ANF. Each nose design has a potentially serious accident in some form or the other. Covered rear wheels helps prevent take offs but the open cockpit danger remains. Until such time that F1 introduces covered rear wheels or closed cockpits, I am happy with a clean and hopefully aesthetically pleasing design.

[Jamiednm]

All noses should be mandated to look like this:

 

 

 

 

/thread

[K20a]

Low nose.

http://www.wallpaper...cf19ccdacc6.jpg

/thread

Perfect.

[Rinehart]

I don't think it matters. Every accident is different. Sometimes the low nose is the better option, other times higher. I don't see any statistical preference. So why mandate one or the other. 

[screamingV16]

I don't think it matters. Every accident is different. Sometimes the low nose is the better option, other times higher. I don't see any statistical preference. So why mandate one or the other. 

 

Very true, I can't believe after just getting low noses mandated we are already knee jerking back the way we came because of one incident. As you say high noses may be safer than low ones in some case, but there will be incidents where the opposite is true, what will do then, go back to low noses ? Surely the barriers should be looked at in terms of stopping them lifting enough to allow a car under them in the first place, but like the reaction to Bianchi's ulitmately fatal accident last year, demands for improved circuit safety seems to have been forgotten in favour of demands for consant changes/redesigning of the cars.

[screamingV16]

Well, they are meant to be cars, not aeroplanes...

 

Well, they're meant to race each other, not crash into each other...

[Imateria]

Very true, I can't believe after just getting low noses mandated we are already knee jerking back the way we came because of one incident. As you say high noses may be safer than low ones in some case, but there will be incidents where the opposite is true, what will do then, go back to low noses ? Surely the barriers should be looked at in terms of stopping them lifting enough to allow a car under them in the first place, but like the reaction to Bianchi's ulitmately fatal accident last year, demands for improved circuit safety seems to have been forgotten in favour of demands for consant changes/redesigning of the cars.

Hardly a knee jerk reaction, people were pointing out this danger right from the time the low noses were implemented. Heck, I always found the reasoning for the low nose to be suspect in the first place (stoping aerial accidents, completely ignoring that most of them are caused by interlocking wheels not the nosecone hitting the rear wheel).

 

I'm also not sure that fixing down tecpro and tyre barriers is a good idea, these things have to move around to absorb and dissipate the impact energy, can they still do it efficiantly when bolted to the ground?

[Marklar]

Besides the McLaren MP4-27 I think that the Ferrari F-2004 is a good reference

[johnmhinds]

The FIA need to have a look at the TechPro barrier system, or whichever company made the barriers for Sochi anyway.

We can't have the marshals pushing the broken foam barriers back into place and patching them up with duct tape like they did after the Grosjean crash.

[johnmhinds]

I don't think it matters. Every accident is different. Sometimes the low nose is the better option, other times higher. I don't see any statistical preference. So why mandate one or the other.

The cars flipping or lifting off isn't caused by the tip of the nose cone because it's not strong enough (check almost every crash where that happened and you'll see the tip of the nose cone is either smashed up or ripped off in those impacts) the flipping is caused by the wheels touching or the high cockpit chassis running up over the back of the other car.

[quaint]

 

American ”open-wheel” spec series are certainly consistent in making their cars uglier by the revision. I'd take phallic or stepped noses over that ungodly creation any day of the week.

[Ali_G]

This

So much this

[Atreiu]

Somewhere in the middle. Mid-2000s noses were pretty.

 

I have always loved the MP4-17D

 

http://media.crash.n...ginal/51960.jpg

[ViMaMo]

 

crash and burn for the ugly nose. 

Edited by ViMaMo, 15 October 2015 - 14:44.

[chipmcdonald]

Some crazy person here, against much consternation, predicted this would be the situation a few years ago...

 

Obviously nose=rear impact structure makes sense.  And covered rear wheels does not hinder the driver seeing the front wheels whatsoever.

[chipmcdonald]

MP4-27 noses all round, please. The low nose rules were solving a problem that never existed, but low noses are better aesthetically (for me at least).

Edit: Ta-daa.

 

 

Beautiful car.

[DrProzac]

The FIA need to have a look at the TechPro barrier system, or whichever company made the barriers for Sochi anyway.

We can't have the marshals pushing the broken foam barriers back into place and patching them up with duct tape like they did after the Grosjean crash.

[mclarensmps]

When I voted "low nose", I mean low nose with wings attached to the nose. Not low nose with wings attached to uprights. 

[johnmhinds]

The FIA need to have a look at the TechPro barrier system, or whichever company made the barriers for Sochi anyway.

We can't have the marshals pushing the broken foam barriers back into place and patching them up with duct tape like they did after the Grosjean crash.

 

This is the shocking repair job i'm referring to.

 

https://twitter.com/...f_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[Atreiu]

What do you mean shocking? It's good enough for punks and sneakers.

Silver tape = foolproof.