How will the 2014 cars look
13th November 2013, 6:58 at 6:58 am #239159
DionParticipant13th November 2013, 8:22 at 8:22 am #239160
IF they don’t want nosecones decapitating drivers, then they should stop demanding he whole length of the nosecone be so high in the first place, and have a nose that drops to the front wing, just like the early-mid 90′s. There were some brilliant looking noses.13th November 2013, 9:43 at 9:43 am #239161
They don’t demand that at all. They simply specify the maximum allowable height for the tip of the nose. The rules that led to step-noses specified the same thing, but after the backlash from the fans and teams, the FIA rewrote the 2014 regulations to prevent something similar from happening. Evidently, the teams have wanted to keep high monocoques, and so found a loophole that allows them to.13th November 2013, 12:49 at 12:49 pm #239162
Why don’t we just go back to the 92-93 noses – they looked pretty great, theywere low at the front and raised in the middle13th November 2013, 13:12 at 1:12 pm #239163
I don’t understand why we are going back to ‘ski’ noses. @prisoner-monkeys gave a great example in a early post regarding the fact that MSC nearly had a face full of Luizzi with what is close to current nose specs. With these new nose tips, it’s more like they’re promoting parts for “Death Race” before they’re implementing control. The monocoque is built to withstand huge impact and forces, forces much greater than a lightweight nose cone and front wing assembly could provide. So the alternative is to ramp the nose? Imagine that nose tucking under someone’s rear wheel at the first corner as the grid backs up, or in a situation of side impact. I struggle to see how this design will improve safety13th November 2013, 13:45 at 1:45 pm #239164
From that picture of the Sauber, is there going to be a rule governing how far the nose must extend beyond the front wing? I’m picturing teams without this weird nose looking like a Ferrari F60, which wasn’t terrible but did look a bit gawky at the front, like it had an overbite (although to be fair that might be partly because of the way the front wing supports are swept backwards and the prominent placement of the camera housings).13th November 2013, 18:43 at 6:43 pm #239165
For me, an important part of F1 (or any racing for that matter), is aesthetics. I’ve never really got used to the disproportionate wings on the cars since 2009, although I do like the clean-ness of the cars with out all those other aero parts that sprouted on the cars pre 2009. If these new noses look anything like the one in the Autosport article, or like that photoshopped Sauber earlier in the thread, I’ll be disappointed. The Brawn nose was very cool. If they want to lower the noses, lets get back to something similar.13th November 2013, 19:02 at 7:02 pm #239166
I am right now trying to persuade my girlfriend into watching F1 again from next year.
How am I going to do that if the cars looks like that? It is absolutely horrifyingly ugly!
Why can’t we just get back to 2008 proportions, but with the clean bodywork of the current cars? That would look incredibly sweet.
I really think that looks of the cars are important.
I want something I can use as my wall paper on my laptop, or that maybe one day accompany the picture of the Ferrari 156/85 on my wall.13th November 2013, 22:20 at 10:20 pm #239167
On the safety aspect, it is because the high noses were very strong that they basically acted like swords, aimed directly at where the driver is sitting in a side impact. There were major concerns that the side impact protection would simply be skimmed over.13th November 2013, 22:41 at 10:41 pm #239168
@vettel1 They might have done it for exactly that reason but I don’t think this is a safer solution, in fact it looks more dangerous to me.13th November 2013, 22:43 at 10:43 pm #23916913th November 2013, 22:47 at 10:47 pm #239170
@force-maikel I agree with you on that. If that autosport drawing is to be believed, the impact from that nosecone, and the small surface area of said nosecone, could almost cause a puncture into the side of the cars. I’m sure there are greater minds than mine in the FIA and down the paddock, but it doesn’t really fill me with confidence that the cars would be any safer. :/14th November 2013, 1:08 at 1:08 am #239171
If they want to lower the noses, lets get back to something similar.
That’s what the FIA wanted – but the teams have evidently felt otherwise.
A high monocoque has obvious benefits. It allows for more air to get in under the front splitter, which is more air that can be used to generate downforce. A low monocoque stifles that. You can have a low moncoque that is very effective – McLaren did it in 2012. But the challenge is in the complications that arise from swapping over. McLaren went from low to high this year, and evidently bit off more than they could chew. The teams clearly don’t want to sacrifice the benefits of a high monocoque and risk stepping into unknown territory at the same time with a switch to a low, so they have concocted this half-baked idea that satisfies both of the demands.
However, I am still sceptical about the authenticity of this image. I think it might be exaggerated to generate a bit of backlack. When the rules were written for the 2011 season, they specifically called for the nose to be no more than 550mm above the ground. We got stepped noses when the terams realised that this only applied from the nose to the front bulkhead (where the axle would normally be if Formula 1 cars had front axles), and that everything behind it could stay at the height they had been using. Hence, we got stepped noses.
The 2014 regulations were written so that the height of the tip of the nose could be no more than 185mm above the ground. These regulations were written before the introduction of stepped noses, and following the backlash, the FIA further amended the rules to prevent stepped noses from being introduced:
And this is where the reported image has a problem. The rewritten anti-step nose regulations specifically call for the chassis to be lowered to be closer to the nose. This means that the monocoque needs to come down, negating the benefits of a high monocoque and thus making a high upper edge of the monocoque impractical because it is unnecessary.
Everybody is reacting to the image posted in the article, but what we should be looking at is this particular line:
But the regulations only demand a relatively small nose tip cross-section, and teams will want to minimise the width of this area to improve air flow under the chassis.
Everyone is reacting to the extension attached to the nosecose, but the issue here is that the image and the description don’t line up. The teams want to minimise the width of the elephant trunk (the G-rated description), but the image shows a design with a needlessly large surface area, and that surface area will create minute aerodynamic effects as the air spills onto the splitter and goes under the car – a critical area for front-end aero. A better solution would be to minimise the width of the elephant trunk and the total surface area, by making the tip and the front wing supports blend smoothly together.14th November 2013, 1:12 at 1:12 am #239172
In fact, I just found this image over at the Autosport forums:
It’s less dramatic, more practical, less revolting and probably much more representative of what we’re going to see.14th November 2013, 1:19 at 1:19 am #239173
That looks OK. I know “the Anteater” nose isn’t very popular on here but I’m sure most could live with that design.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.