24 replies to this topic

[Ali_G]

I was just thinking about this. Before 94 all F1 cars had noses which came down to the ground. SInce Benetton started it in 94 noses have come off the ground.

Wasn't it about 94 when there was a reduction in passing.
Maybe the answer to more passing is to have noses which must come down to the floor. Would these noses be less aerodynamic in some way.

If you think about it these noses would also reduce the amount of air going to the rear diffuser and so passing should be improved.

Niall

[Timm]

The high nose F1 car was introduced by Tyrell in '90.

The concept was that without draggy bodywork in the area, the air entering the underfloor would have higher energy. A 'bubble' intended to do the same job was a feature of the '85 Porsche 956/962

In my opinion, they've not been a factor in the poor passing in modern F1 when compared with the terrible tracks F1 races these days.

[Ali_G]

I would rather to see a return anyway. They do make the car less aerodynamically efficient plus they look better.

Niall

[Damop]

As a counter-argument, look at the nose on the McLaren - it is one of the lowest and comes closest to the old style of nose, yet the McLaren is the most optimal shape. Present good engineers with a set of restricitons, and they will find a way around it.

[Ali_G]

Damop : Its acctually well known that the Ferrari has the best front end in F1. Its just that McLaren has the beswt diffuser and rear wing in F1 that gives them such an advantage.

Niall

[Sudsbouy]

Ali_G:

The "well known" fact that Ferrari has a better front end and McLaren has the better back end, where did you get this information? It seems like the cars would be unbalanced if they didn't try to optimize both. Since the nose is all external, it seems as though it would be relatively easy to for a team with McLaren's level of technology to incorporate any of the required ideas to improve their nose.

Also, I read some where that a designer, perhaps it was Hamidy (sp?), said that it really didn't matter whether the nose was high or low (the McLaren low). The same basic areodynamics could be realized with either.

Thank you.

[Pascal]

Well known by whom?

As Sudsbouy stated, a modern Formula 1 car is not a jigsaw of parts, but rather an integrated mechanical system where all elements have to work in perfect harmony with each others.

Stating that one specific part is better on the Ferrari or the Jordan has not sense since the element would not be working at all as it is if mounted on any other car...

[Ali_G]

I heard it on ITV from Martin Brundle.

Why would the car be unbalenced ???????
It would just mean that the rear wing would not cut the air aswell as the front.

The shape of the Ferrari front wing is not similar to any in F1. Along with that V Shape and the High Nose people in F1 believe that it cuts the air better.

I am not sure but this might be passing on bad effects to the rear of the car. That's why McLaren go for a low nose as it optimises air flow to the rear diffuser.

Niall

[Aerow]

I have always assumed that the high nose was more efficient aerodynanamically because it produces less lift or downforce and thus less drag. The loss of downforce, if any, can be recovered with a higher wing incedence and a relatively small increase in drag because the wing is much more efficient aerodynamically than the body.

[Pascal]

Ali_G, take a close look at the nose of this Minardi from 1987, and you'll see that the V shaped front wing is not exactly new.


From my personal collection

If there was such an universal benefit in using such a configuration, you can be sure that all teams with access to a wind tunnel would have adopted it by now. As it is, we only know that it works well on the Ferrari, but have no elements leading us to think that a McLaren or any other car would get something out of it if they were to copy the Scuderia on this design.

[andy_bee]

I know its not on the same level, but I did quite a bit of aerodynamic testing of a few 1/4 scale models for my degree (yrs ago), which led to the car below. Now, I am an Industrial Designer and thus out of my depth with aerodynamics, but what I did learn that the same front wings on different cars will have different effects. Remember that with F1, although the front wing does create downforce, it is used to help over/understeer but more importantly the Balance of the car.

When I then worked for an F1 team it was very interesting how just changing the actual aspect of the wing by a couple of millimetres, something you could hardly see would make such a difference, so whilst the delta wing may work on the Ferrari, their is no gaurantee that it will work on anything else. If you picked up a front wing flap and looked across it, it was pretty amazing all the surface changes as you looked from left to right. Very suttle. Its also interesting to note the trend away from the really high noses.

As for the best car aerodynamically, it can only be heresay

Andy

[Powersteer]

The reason for Ferrari's V shape wing is more downforce.To say it produces better aerodynamics is unknown but i can confirm it produces better downforce. Maybe its better aerodynamics in relation to downforce? downforce/drag ratio?


Anyway...the inner end of the wing acts like the end plate like on the outer part of the wing because of the angle. Less flow will escape from the inner wing and compressing them to the outer part of the wing. Another plus on downforce here is it forces the air go over one another, being the air from the inner part would be forced to the outside because of the V shape and will 'step over' the air that has entered from the out part of the wing. On the underpart of the wing, they use little deflectors to prevent air from the inner wing going towards the outer part of the wing. Usually what they do to at the outer part of the wing is add deflectors forcing more air towards the inner part of the wheel too....creating a hole of vacuum between the wheels, acccelerating air that goes past the front wing. Hell actually i dont know what are they up to


They love to cover up the front wings nowdays. What puzzles me about front wings is the Jordans. Look at it and you will realise a transparent wing. Could it be that they are using high electrostatic wing to speed up air going round that part??? like how a hot exaust pipes works better than a cold one.


On the McLarens nose, its brilliant because it also uses high nose but they have compromised it to get better downforce at the front, unlike all the other missle looking cars. Evevr since the introduction of the grooved tyres many has been complaining of understeering problem, so this is McLarens escape route.



And who says high nose has better aerodynamic effiecincy??? unless you are talking bout downforce. Look at under part of the car, you see it very aerodynamic? surely no, so why put more concertrated air to that area for slipperiness, air can't even go under the underpart but air only around it but air could be devided when it goes over the top part and around it.Much more efficient. On a high nose design, air would still go over.The french guy (who worked with Postlewaith) created the high nose on Alesi's Arrows for downforce at the back end anyway. Notice how critical diffuser design are nowdays?? blame it on the high nose


I wonder if all that air going around the under part of the car could create a wall with the help of the barge boards??

[Nathan]

Well here is make take, sorry if it ahs been said already.

Ali you mentioned that passing started to decline in the 94 season. I think the reason for this is the track mods that were required to be done by the FIA after Senna's death.

I dont think the nose has anything to do with it in this way. A high nose allows for better aerodynamics and downforce as discussed. However in 1994 the downforce produced I dont think omes close to what the side skirt and active suspension cars made ealier. Not to mention the tech regs back then allowqed for a more efficient design as far as wing placement. So persoanlly I think it looks as though the more downforce, the more passing.

[andy_bee]

The clear fin on the Jordan (and BAR used it as well) front wing end plate is just because of sponsorship and marketing so the the Deutsche Post logo can be seen

Money talks!!

[baddog]

as I understand things (assembled from my readings):

1: high noses (even the mclaren nose is very definitely a high nose) allow more efficent front wings so more front downforce, and with the splitter provide a better feed of air to the undertray and hence diffuser.

2: this superior front downforce (which is highly sensitive to disruption) does in fact have a negative impact on slipstreaming, especially in combination with the enhancements to the diffuser airflow it yields.

3: Ferraris car has a particularly effective front end package leading to excellent corner entry, most of their problems this year have been linked to problems with the rear stability (hence rear tyre wear issues)

4: Mclarens package does NOT have a weak front, their package is well balanced.

Shaun

[Powersteer]

The high nose don't contribute to front downforce, you get four endplate effect with low nose

[Ali_G]

See at least someone believes me about Ferrari having the best front end.

If for anything it would make the cars look better. At the moment they are the worst looking in a decade since at least 92.

Niall

[mhferrari]

What about the 92' Benetton?

[Ali_G]

I was just looking at a few books. In 94 Ferrari had a high nose yet in 96 they had a low nose. That just doesn't make sense.

Niall

[andy_bee]

Ali G- Remeber its a question of balance, the 96 car may have had a more balanced aerodynamic package than say a 94 car. Also back in the mid 90's the high nose was still relatively new, so teams were doing this just because the leaders had it, so it almost became a fashion.

Aerodynamics is a black art and what will work on one car won't always work on another.

Both the front and rear tyres on the Ferrari wear more than on the McLaren, so that gives an indication that the front end may not be "perfect", but no one knows not even Brawn and Newey,, unless they had each others data.

IMHO I can't believe that other F1 teams haven't tried the front delta wing in a windtunnel

Its not really the nose and wing that effects passing its the rear diffuse and the stepped floor. That I believ is the biggest culprit to no-overtaking

[colejk]

Originally posted by:

Powersteer

The reason for Ferrari's V shape wing is more downforce.To say it produces better aerodynamics is unknown but i can confirm it produces better downforce. Maybe its better aerodynamics in relation to downforce? downforce/drag ratio?

Actually, I believe that it has to do with the amount of air that can be drawn over it. I remember reading an artice in Autosport stating that at speed there is a tremondous "suction effect" created by the front wing. By shaping it in a V, besides the air in front of it the air to the side is also drawn into it's airstream, in effect "widening" the wing. I thought this was extremely neat. It's hard to describe without showing the original drawings from the article.

[Timm]

1. I always understood that a high nose was to benefit the underfloor, not the front wing.

2. The 'V' Planform wing was a feature of Ferraris in the late '70's/Early '80's. Could the purpose be to rectify a slight lateral airspeed difference at the leading edge. Another purpose could be to induce vortices.

3. I think some carstoday look quite sleek. The livery is crucially important. This years Jaguar and Williams' are good-looking cars, as was last years Minardi and any of the West McLarens.

[JohanPretorius]

just my tuppence worth...

look carefully at all the 2000 cars.

the higher the nose - the smaller the bargeboards
the lower the nose - the bigger the bargeboards

therefore we can assume that with a slightly higher nose less `tunneling` of airflow underneath the floor(board) and towards the diffuser is required.

so with a lower nose the reverse formula is applicable...

or am I just a Ferrari HighNoseFanatic.

cheers

[EddieJF1]

What about the Jordan and the Jag with a low nose and very small barge boards up between the front suspension?

[Fritz]

I thought that an additional benefit of high noses was that they were less sensitive to bumps. Since the low noses had a very thin layer of air below them, the air could easily be compressed due to bumps and lead to a loss of front end aerodynamical grip...