Caterham CT-01 launched
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
I'm not sure I get the logic that it won't be aerodynamic. I mean, we had The Year Of The Stupid Winglets not too long ago (2007?), and the McLaren U-shaped sidepods last year. Surely you (those saying it's a bad technical idea) must realise we no longer have F1 cars that are uniformly smooth?
The winglets were for downforce and the U-shaped pods had an obvious advantage for aero as it allowed more 'clean' air to be directed to the rear. Those side pods are only going to be even more extreme this year.
But yes as you say, good looking car doesn't always = competitive. Still remember everyone raving about the Williams this time last year as most people thought it looked the best aesthetically and it was least competitive car they've ever built.
That's my point though. People seem to think that the best shape for an F1 car is the old 90's style, when it's clear that weird shapes and angles do actually help. We've no idea if this nose will yet, but it's silly to just assume it won't.
Flat surfaces, especially at the front is not good aero dynamically. Two biggest being wheels and drivers. It's a pretty steep steep. It hasn't got anything to do with prettiness. We shall have to wait to see the front runners, to see if they could figure out something better within the rules, or if the rules really do make that the design of choice.
As I said I'm sure the scarab illustration of the stepped nose, was that a direct illustration and even said they could blend the top levels together, as it was the bottom levelling in the rules.
Last edited:
Caterham have gone for as high a nose as possible within the regulations. I expect the whole top of the front part is right on the height limit (55cm?). Then they have a nose that is as thin as possible, but remains strong enough to pass the crash tests, and hold the wing on. this means they have created the largest amount of space under it as possible, and as we all know, the whole reason we have this rule is because noses were going higher and higher as teams strived to get as much air under it and to the floor as possible.
Imagine there being a glass 'celling' at 55cm at the front of the car. They have pushed and squashed the nose upwards against it as far as they can.
The reasons for this nose are the aero under it, not over it. When you look at it that way, you see why they did it.
I expect if they could they would have a wafer thin perfectly flat nose right at the top of the 55cm height limit.
Imagine there being a glass 'celling' at 55cm at the front of the car. They have pushed and squashed the nose upwards against it as far as they can.
The reasons for this nose are the aero under it, not over it. When you look at it that way, you see why they did it.
I expect if they could they would have a wafer thin perfectly flat nose right at the top of the 55cm height limit.
Last edited:
That's a very good point indeed and something I didn't think off.
Man I can't wait.
When's the f1 channel going live and are any of the tests on it?
SSF1 isn't live until March, but Sky have said that SSNews will have reports from each of the pre-season tests.
What those reports will contain is not known, but we do know there will be a couple of SSNews reporters at each on.
What those reports will contain is not known, but we do know there will be a couple of SSNews reporters at each on.
Seems I got it wrong. I thought the rules allowed for a gradual merge between the limited nose and bulkhead. But it seems not.
http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2012_nose_dimensions1.jpg
7.5cm drop and 15cm to merge it.
So that pretty much means they will all look similar.
http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2012_nose_dimensions1.jpg
7.5cm drop and 15cm to merge it.
So that pretty much means they will all look similar.
Yeah that was a low and nice looking nose. I expect they'll change it next year.
Also I don't understand why they've limited the top height. Surly the less aero and risk from two Img is all to do with height of the underside, not the top?
Also I don't understand why they've limited the top height. Surly the less aero and risk from two Img is all to do with height of the underside, not the top?
Last edited:
A combination of wanting a low nose but not wanting to lower the height of the front of the carbon tub.
The regulation is about safety, not looks. The resulting nose appearance is the product of teams getting the maximum aero advantage from that regulation, i.e. getting as much air under the nose as possible.
Expect all teams noses to be very thin.
Oh, and blame the teams, not the FIA for the front of the tub being the same height. The FIA wanted to lower it too, but the teams went against it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,483
- Location
- LU7
Isn't the idea behind the lower nose due to accidents like Webber v Kovaleinen at Valencia where the FIA fear that high noses cause cars to flip up into the air when they strike another car. So the FIA wanted lower noses to prevent this from happening? Or as often/severe as it has before?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 15,645
- Location
- The land of milk & beans
It was for safety, but more for accidents like Schumacher/Liuzzi in Abu Dhabi 2010, where the nose of the car could intrude in the cockpit of another driver.
They'll never be able to stop wheel/wheel contacts like Webber/Kovalainen unless they cover the wheels, which will never happen in F1.
They'll never be able to stop wheel/wheel contacts like Webber/Kovalainen unless they cover the wheels, which will never happen in F1.
But think about the back of the car from the side.......take away the rear wing (like in a crash) and the back of the car looks abit like a ramp don't u think?
so that can't be it......