The new rule proposed for 2015 involving the differential of the curve over the nose never going above a certain absolute value sounds like it could help a lot. That would remove the possibility for weird noses like Ferrari's.agip wrote:Is the FIA planing to lower the chasis even more for the future? That could be the end of all this awful noses.
No, timbo made weird assumptions, I never argued anywhere that suspension can create downforce. My arguments have been strictly about car handling and an alternative path which teams can take away from traditional downforce generation and balance (now proven by the McLaren front wing approach).henra wrote: Hmm, this logic escapes me
What he surely wanted to tell you, albeit in a somewhat encoded form is that suspension can't create downforce and thus can't increase maximum lateral loads on a car. What it can do is to make sure that you can continuously exploit the max lateral load which the tyres can produce given a certain weight and downforce, even if the track surface isn't perfect. It can also help minimising losses of max lateral load due to deformation of the tyres (resulting in decreased contact patch).
But suspension can't trump physics.
You said that suspension takes care of lateral force. That is simply not true.GrandAxe wrote:No, timbo made weird assumptions, I never argued anywhere that suspension can create downforce. My arguments have been strictly about car handling and an alternative path which teams can take away from traditional downforce generation and balance (now proven by the McLaren front wing approach).
In an earlier post, I especially mentioned teams with active suspension systems (from 2013) like Mercedes, Lotus and Red Bull. Any team that can bridge the gap between a softly sprung and stiffly sprung platform would be able to play with their aero platform in the manner I have mentioned.
Your arguments about lateral load really don't apply to what I argued; as an aside though, they do not take torque and weight distribution into consideration. Its a whole bag of factors.
They did assert back then that the reason for that was because high noses would soon be banned, and that they would rather think ahead.raymondu999 wrote:I wonder if McLaren being pretty much the last team to go with a low nose design in early 2012 will help them any in this new low nose era.
Of course you know I was talking about lateral forces at a corner due to inertia. I mentioned that an alternative approach to what everyone is assuming (routinely shovelling front wing air to the diffuser); that the new weight distribution could inform novel use of the suspension and a mix of other factors, such as brake bias, race line, as well as shifting the generation of downforce forwards with more front downforce.timbo wrote:You said that suspension takes care of lateral force. That is simply not true.
The tyre handles all forces. The grip it has is proportional to the load. Shifting weight to one axle increases available grip, but if you move more weight to the rear you also increase lateral force acting on the axle, which is proportional to the square of speed. The weight on the other hand stays constant. So above a certain speed there's no way that grip gained by weight alone will be sufficient to handle the lateral force. Downforce on the other hand does not increase lateral force, it also increases as the square of speed which balances the increase in the lateral force. If you want car to pull those 3-5G's in the corner you need downforce. There's no way around that. There's nothing suspension can do for that either.
That just wouldn't work. You would get extremely unstable car. In fact the downforce distribution has to closely follow weight distribution (it is also always biased a bit to the rear, e.g. if you have 40:60 weight distribution front to rear, the DF distribution would be something like 37:63). The weight distribution itself must follow what tyres dictate.GrandAxe wrote:Considering all factors, some teams might increase front downforce in order to tow the heavier rear end around corners better.
Suspension can't "mitigate" lateral forces. You have limited tyre capacity and suspension can't improve that. It may improve handling and provide more even contact patch, but you just can't throw suspension and get additional 1G in corner. Actually, FRIC (which is not active actually) was used to make ride height more constant to produce downforce more efficiently.GrandAxe wrote:The lateral forces can be mitigated by active suspension systems (like the FRIC)
By what? If youGrandAxe wrote:Such an approach would help F1 cars maintain top speeds on most of the track, sacrifice some cornering speed for less drag, straight line speed an better fuel efficiency.
They should all have a patch on the side saying,beelsebob wrote:Personally, I think these noses are much much better tan the 2012-13 ones. The Ferrari one is pretty ugly, but so was their earlier one. The excessively high noses that didn't even droop at all of the years before were even worse.
Roll on more cock noses!
And then they went ahead and did the high nose high tub 28beelsebob wrote:They did assert back then that the reason for that was because high noses would soon be banned, and that they would rather think ahead.raymondu999 wrote:I wonder if McLaren being pretty much the last team to go with a low nose design in early 2012 will help them any in this new low nose era.
Which was a failure by McLaren standards... "Thinking ahead" was most probably smoke and mirrors given below:
But you have to admit that we finally have some major differences between the car & concepts, which highlights the engineering behind the racing...which is the "trademark" of F1. That has been missing over the past few years, and I personally am happy to see it, and can't wait to see what happens over the course of the season - the developments will also be easily recognized (and not a vortex generator which was moved three mm back and one mm higher than before).gold333 wrote:2014 is conclusive proof that the FIA is incompetent at drafting and thinking through formula regulations.
It is an utter embarrassment to the professionalism, foresight and inherent capacity of the person in question responsible for these formula regulations.
As for some people finding them allright or not special. One must not forget that aesthetic cognition ability is a person specific skill, like maths or language. Not everyone can "see" ugly design. So some people will find the shape of that airbus ok or even pretty.
But those people will usually struggle to name anything truly ugly or beautiful as to them there is not much distinction between the two. It's the phrase of a person "having taste" or "having no taste" I suppose.
I prefer the cameltoe designation better, just because the double meaning fits to the general XX & XY theme of this season.Kiril Varbanov wrote:To sum up the current situation via associations:
