Groups

High nose vs Low nose (15 posts)

Viewing post 1 to 15 (15 total posts)

Eggry said 1 year, 3 months ago:

We all know Caterham chose very high nose(and almost flat), but it seems, interestingly, it’s not the only choice of 2012. In an article about 2012 Ferrari on F1.com, it show Ferrari now has low nose concept and…pull-rod front suspension!!

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2012/0/930.html

so the first technical battle of 2012 will be high nose vs low nose. since Mclaren would launch their 2012 car today, it would be interesting to check which nose they have.

#
raymondu999 said 1 year, 3 months ago:

Flat? How is that flat? There’s a huge step change in the middle.

#
Prisoner Monkeys said 1 year, 3 months ago:

Because the actual nose is defined as the section in front of the bulkhead, which is the point where the step is visible. everything behind the bulkhead is defined as part of the chassis. Think of it this way: in an accident that destroys a front wing, the pit crew will remove the entire front end. This is the nose. Everything behind it is the monocoque.

#
Mike said 1 year, 3 months ago:

@raymondu999

Ignoring the bump, the team were trying to make it as high, and therefore as flat as possible. The numb is force on them due to the rules.

This Ferrari doesn’t look quite as “extreme” as I was expecting. Maybe it’ll look more bizarre when I see the real thing.

Those sidepods are really cut in, and I think it’s interesting that the exhausts being used to affect the read wing proves John Beamer correct.

#
Eggry said 1 year, 3 months ago:

@Mike yeah, I think the most interesting part of the car is sidepod. or should I say side impact structure? Anyway, Ferrari really did aggressive move.

#
raymondu999 said 1 year, 3 months ago:

@Mike @Eggry do note that this is a rendition of what Piola thinks/assumes/knows. Piola is a good source, but you never know…

#
Eggry said 1 year, 3 months ago:

@raymondu999 True. but I think it’s too radical to be bluff. We will know how accurate it is soon…

#
Mike said 1 year, 3 months ago:

True, Still, we’ve got the Mclaren to occupy us today.

#
raymondu999 said 1 year, 3 months ago:

@Eggry I didn’t say he was bluffing. But that is Piola’s guest guess/estimation; and based on what he might or might not have heard. It’s like I tell you now “Microsoft shares will go up by 6.3% tomorrow.” You have no way of knowing if I know something that you don’t; or if I’m just making an educated guess.

#
Eggry said 1 year, 3 months ago:

Indeed. Just one more interesting thing to be seen.

#
GeeMac said 1 year, 3 months ago:

Judging from the picture of the car under it’s cover which is on the espnf1 website, the nose will be similar to last years. Looks like the sidepods are where the magic will be…

#
Calum said 1 year, 3 months ago:

ESPN showed the 2009 car.

http://f1.imgci.com/PICTURES/CMS/13200/13202.jpg

http://f1tcdn.net/gallery/var/resizes/McLaren/MP4-24/Launch/5089.jpg

See the tree and windows, and rounded nose.

#
GeorgeDaviesF1 said 1 year, 3 months ago:

Mclaren have proved that you dont have to have the “platypus” nose, wonder if any other teams have gone down that route?

I didn’t like high nose 09 cars at first

#
Zadak said 1 year, 3 months ago:

I wander if anyone will try a really low nose this year, like the Brawn.

They proved a really low nose wasn’t useless, but maybe there is just less room to develop, compared to the high noses.

#
raymondu999 said 1 year, 3 months ago:

@thezadak Hard to see that happening, much as I loved the look of that Brawn car. The reason for that was to keep the car’s CofG low at the front as you used to need to ballast the front with the 2009 tyres. That doesn’t happen now; and also, you want the nose ever higher to allow more air in to feed the diffuser.

#