8 replies to this topic

[Paolo]

Back in the 70's, a lot of cars sported a full width faired nose instead of a winged one.
See, just to name one, Tyrrell 003:



Last time a similar proposition was seen in F1 was in the Toleman TG183, 1983, by Rory Byrne.

Dallara fielded a prototype nosed in F3 in 1982, next year they went to traditional nosecone because the nose was hampering the flow to the venturis.


Yet these were exceptions; more or less the solution died some years before, when ground effect came.
Yet, apart from the obvious problems it gave on ground effect cars, it probably was a solution with some merits, since lots of people were using it.

It appears obvious it couldn't provide the same amount of front downforce as a winged design, and it was less adjustable so is it possible its strong point was drag reduction.

But how much? One would have expected to see these noses everywhere at Indy, if it was the case, yet it was seldom used there.

Was it possibly just fashion? Any data or recollections?

[rhm]

I think it made sense when they were still mounting the radiators at the front. Cars with front mounted radiators are necessarilly pretty wide at the nose and that doesn't leave much width before you get into the area ahead of the wheels where wings work less effectively anyway.

[Paolo]

Yes, I've heard this explanation, yet a lot of prototype nosed cars had their radiators on the back of sidepods, such as this 1971 Surtees:



Nose holes are for brake ducts.


Not even brake duct holes on March 761:




This Hesketh tried to combine the best of both worlds...

[jatwarks]

The $billions spent on R & D since these photos were taken have proved that the intuition used then in design was not always a useful tool.

Jim.

[Gecko]

Indeed, I believe jatwarks is right. Another such similar design issue is the wedge body design, which was very popular in the 70s but then fell out of favour.

[rhm]

Originally posted by Paolo
Yes, I've heard this explanation, yet a lot of prototype nosed cars had their radiators on the back of sidepods, such as this 1971 Surtees:

Doesn't mean the explanation is wrong, just that people carried on, set in their ways, despite moving radiators back. Maybe it was tough in those days to make a narrow nose stiff enough or maybe the designers just under-estimated the downforce wings could create.

[murpia]

Originally posted by rhm
...maybe the designers just under-estimated the downforce wings could create.

That sounds like a probable explanation to me. I doubt many designers in that era had any data at all on the effectiveness of their aero packages, beyond a speed trap number for drag.

Regards, Ian

[Kalmake]

What about Can-Am influence? That was the pioneering series at the time.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by murpia

That sounds like a probable explanation to me. I doubt many designers in that era had any data at all on the effectiveness of their aero packages, beyond a speed trap number for drag.

Regards, Ian

I would also venture to guess that because the rear downforce wasn't all that great, that a sportscar nose was a reasonably efficient way to balance the car. Let's face it, take the front wing off a modern car and smack it on one of the vintage cars and I bet she'd be a wee bit free in the quick bits.

The front only got elaborate after the rear wings got bigger.