Ferrari F60

[Conceptual]

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be legal with the 2009 aero regulations.

How so? It could easily be implemented in a much more organic way that would make it almsot a scaling up of the nosehole...

I will do a new mockup when the kids goto bed...

[i70q7m7ghw]

Is it mandatory to have a central section to the wing? If you spread the pylons out nice and wide, use an upper element on the wing to connect to the pylons (similar to what Ferrari were running last year) using that element to provide some structural rigidity you could do away with a central section and the lift it creates, no?

[Miguel]

FFS, a 1991 Mclaren MP4/6 is almost as fast as a 2008 F1 car. It's all a gimmick.

In which circuits? Just imagine how fast would be an F2008 with wider track, 1.1L of aditional engine displacement (approx 1100 BHP), full flat bottom, wider and lower wings and electronic aids. Woaaaa! It'd probably be about 8s faster per lap.

[Conceptual]

FFS, a 1991 Mclaren MP4/6 is almost as fast as a 2008 F1 car. It's all a gimmick.

In which circuits? Just imagine how fast would be an F2008 with wider track, 1.1L of aditional engine displacement (approx 1100 BHP), full flat bottom, wider and lower wings and electronic aids. Woaaaa! It'd probably be about 8s faster per lap.

psst... don't forget the active suspension, and the anti-matter batteries!

[djos]

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be legal with the 2009 aero regulations.

Correct, nose holes have been explicitly banned from 2009 onwards.

[ISLAMATRON]

Is it mandatory to have a central section to the wing? If you spread the pylons out nice and wide, use an upper element on the wing to connect to the pylons (similar to what Ferrari were running last year) using that element to provide some structural rigidity you could do away with a central section and the lift it creates, no?

Why does everybody keep saying the central section creates lift? from everything I have read the central section has a neutral priofile much like the camara winglets and since the main plane has been lowered towards the road like the old style wings it creates ground effect downforce.

Conceptual's nose design, although a good idea(pending downforce vs drag analysis) is surely against the current rules.

[Conceptual]

Is it mandatory to have a central section to the wing? If you spread the pylons out nice and wide, use an upper element on the wing to connect to the pylons (similar to what Ferrari were running last year) using that element to provide some structural rigidity you could do away with a central section and the lift it creates, no?

Why does everybody keep saying the central section creates lift? from everything I have read the central section has a neutral priofile much like the camara winglets and since the main plane has been lowered towards the road like the old style wings it creates ground effect downforce.

Conceptual's nose design, although a good idea(pending downforce vs drag analysis) is surely against the current rules.

Can anyone provide the section of the tech regs that specifically prohibit flo-thru nosecones?

And ISLAMATRON, Pat Symonds has stated numerous times that the center section generates lift due to the upwash of the diffusor of the leading car making the center of the front wing of the trailing car create lift. So, by creating lift in the first place, it changes to downforce generation while in the diffusor wake of another car.

[ISLAMATRON]

And ISLAMATRON, Pat Symonds has stated numerous times that the center section generates lift due to the upwash of the diffusor of the leading car making the center of the front wing of the trailing car create lift. So, by creating lift in the first place, it changes to downforce generation while in the diffusor wake of another car.

In what way does anything you typed right there make any sense? can someone please translate for me? Imma look for pat's direct explanation, but I dont buy it as of yet. Then again I tried my best to stay away from the aero engineering building while at university.

[Shaddock]

I think it may have been lost in translation....

The up wash from the wake of a leading car reduces down force of the front wing of the trailing car, hence the wider lower front wings & higher, taller rear wings this year to combat this.

The centre section would produce lift if it had an aerofoil section or a positive angle of attack. But this is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

[tk421]

See Below...

[tk421]

Can anyone provide the section of the tech regs that specifically prohibit flo-thru nosecones?

I trust this:

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be legal with the 2009 aero regulations.

Correct, nose holes have been explicitly banned from 2009 onwards.

And if still in doubt, certainly Conceptual can go to the FIA website and read the regs himself, no?

And this:

Pat Symonds has stated numerous times that the center section generates lift due to the upwash of the diffusor of the leading car.

Why does everybody keep saying the central section creates lift? from everything I have read the central section has a neutral priofile much like the camara winglets and since the main plane has been lowered towards the road like the old style wings it creates ground effect downforce.

So it seems a car's main wing doesn't produce lift unless behind another car. It seems difinitive that the main plane is, in and of itself, neutral, and if and only if while following another car (as Pat Symonds states), it might create lift...That said, I admit I'm no expert, so I humbly digress!

[Conceptual]

If you dig, you will find it. He stated that currently while following another car, you lose downforce, and increase drag... I believe that Ogami has called this the overtaking oxymoron. By having a lifting wing (very near neutral) in the center of the wing when this effect happens, it actually causes the front wing to increase downforce while decreasing drag, which is what you want for slip streaming.

Ogami can fix anything that isnt right. I still ahve not found in the tech regs the specific banning of the thru-nose hole, so if anyone can direct me, please do so!

In the mean time, more pics!

[axle]

Despite it illegality, I'll comment on that nose...I'd say that would create so much drag that it wouldn't benefit the lap time.

Ferrari's version was about releasing trapped energy/air pressure...this one would create it.

[xpensive]

Conceptual, isn't it interesting how you can behold things in different ways?
Is your design a conventional nose with a hole thru itself, of a spoon-shaped nose with a different kind of wing on top?

[modbaraban]

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.