Ferrari F60

[Scotracer]

1) It's illegal

2) The reason the Ferrari nose hole was useful is that it released high pressure air from under the nose, thus reducing drag...this would do work on free-stream air increasing drag. It would also be very yaw sensitive, by the looks of it.

[Agerasia]

Anyone know the regs regarding the supporting struts?

[Conceptual]

Don't think that would work. However it's quite scary if this thing follows you closely. It might bite a piece of yout car off unless you yield So I think it would work psychologically.

The cars already have Shark fins, why not Shark mouths???

[Conceptual]

Anyone know the regs regarding the supporting struts?

I have gone through the regs looking for the struts and the nose-hole (that many have said is illegal, but have yet to link to the technical rules that define it as so...

All I could find is the side-view surface area and things like that. I have yet to see a "it must be this, and cannot be anything but" anywhere.

And about the nosehole that I made. It is a solid model, not a planar model, so it is not as organic as I would like. The point is less to create downforce through the nose, but to build static pressure behind/under the inlet, so the center section of the wing produces downforce.

I'll stop playing with it now tho... lol

[slimjim8201]

Anyone know the regs regarding the supporting struts?

I have gone through the regs looking for the struts and the nose-hole (that many have said is illegal, but have yet to link to the technical rules that define it as so...

All I could find is the side-view surface area and things like that. I have yet to see a "it must be this, and cannot be anything but" anywhere.

And about the nosehole that I made. It is a solid model, not a planar model, so it is not as organic as I would like. The point is less to create downforce through the nose, but to build static pressure behind/under the inlet, so the center section of the wing produces downforce.

I'll stop playing with it now tho... lol

Not sure that the interaction you are looking for could be achieved with a nose cone hole. Keep in mind that the '08 hole was intended to work with the '08 wing flaps, the center section specifically. With the center section ending so close to the underside of the nose cone, the air had to divert around the cone body, thus reducing wing performance and increasing drag. With the hole in place, more air could stay attached and flow over and around the wing flap as if the nose cone weren't there at all, increasing performance.

Check it out:

http://turboeng.blogspot.com/2008/05/fe ... nuity.html

[xpensive]

Correct me where I go wrong here, but the highest static-pressure is achieved at the lowest speed, why a vertical flat plate under the nose and just behind the wing, should be the optimum solution for creating downforce on the center wing-section.

Only, the static-pressure between wing and nose, will push the nose up with the same force as it will push the wing down, why virtually nothing has been accomplished, right?

[donskar]

Conceptual wrote:

I have yet to see a "it must be this, and cannot be anything but" anywhere

.

And this surprises you? FIA regs seems to echo Henry James: "A mystery wrapped in an enigma."

[Agerasia]

So you could channel the air through struts instead by placing openings on the side of them, of course the air would have to exit at a point of lower pressure and an area allowed.
It would not be as effective as the nose cone hole but would do the same thing on a smaller scale.

[Conceptual]

Conceptual wrote:

I have yet to see a "it must be this, and cannot be anything but" anywhere

.

And this surprises you? FIA regs seems to echo Henry James: "A mystery wrapped in an enigma."

I understand that, but according to the denouncers on this thread as to its deffinate banning, there MUST be something other than their intereptation for them to say that. I doubt anyone on this forum would spout like that without authoritative backup, don't you think?

[timbo]

I understand that, but according to the denouncers on this thread as to its deffinate banning, there MUST be something other than their intereptation for them to say that. I doubt anyone on this forum would spout like that without authoritative backup, don't you think?

There's a rule that states only one closed section somewhere , I guess that's the one.

[Scotracer]

Correct me where I go wrong here, but the highest static-pressure is achieved at the lowest speed, why a vertical flat plate under the nose and just behind the wing, should be the optimum solution for creating downforce on the center wing-section.

Only, the static-pressure between wing and nose, will push the nose up with the same force as it will push the wing down, why virtually nothing has been accomplished, right?

So you're suggesting an air-dam like those used on race-car splitters? I think that would produce too much drag.

[rjsa]

Correct me where I go wrong here, but the highest static-pressure is achieved at the lowest speed, why a vertical flat plate under the nose and just behind the wing, should be the optimum solution for creating downforce on the center wing-section.

Only, the static-pressure between wing and nose, will push the nose up with the same force as it will push the wing down, why virtually nothing has been accomplished, right?

You lost me at 'here'. You suggest a barn door just after the wing?

[tk421]

I have gone through the regs looking for the struts and the nose-hole (that many have said is illegal, but have yet to link to the technical rules that define it as so...

Hey Conceptual,

Just sent you a humble PM. I quoted two other members saying that the hole-in-the-nose was banned, a few other members have backed that since, and I even saw in Craig Scarborough's (a.k.a. scarbs on F1T) Autosport article that the hole-in-the-nose is banned. I guess what I really meant is that sometimes you have to have faith in your F1T forum members, even if you can't find the specific verbiage in the regs. Anyway, after the TF109 launch I had the same thought about the front wing struts and what kind of regs restricted those. The FiA certainly thought of everything, eh? About the F60, until Monday and Tuesday (Williams, Renault, and BMW launches) Ferrari are losing 2 to 1 on exposed exhaust pipes. However, it looks to me like they're still leading in the reduction of rear surface area. It looks a lot thinner at the back than the TF109 or the MP4-24....to me anyway....

[timbo]

I just noticed that on this picture I looks like the rear wing is 3 element -

what do you think?

[xpensive]

For rjsa: No, I am not suggesting anything, cetainly no barn-door.

I am only trying to explain some Bernoulli principles, the way I understand it I should add, and the fact that pressure works in every direction.