Honda RA106

Stan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> using ChetLogic TM all ferraris since 1999 should
> have been shite cause they had a wide nose
>
>
>

wtpf? wish ChetLogic TM was as good as yr's

What i said was.... a wider nose helps with balance...

A wider nose is stiffer, obv.

A wider nose, therefore stiffer and stronger has greater resistance against any bending and torsional movments caused by the aerodynamic loads.

People say that a thinner nose would see less upwash from the front wing too.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Just in...

lol ! it looks superb ! how much does it cost ??

£13.37 :P

lol

'kin bargin!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2006 01:16AM by chet.

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What i said was.... a wider nose helps with
> balance...
>
> A wider nose is stiffer, obv.
>
> A wider nose, therefore stiffer and stronger has
> greater resistance against any bending and
> torsional movments caused by the aerodynamic
> loads.

I don't read the F1 section here much, and that statement reminds me why.

"I don't read the F1 section here much, and that statement reminds me why"
It wouldn't be so annoying if people wrote "i think" or "maybe" before posting this kind of stuff, unless you're an aerodynamicist how can you possibly know exactly how they work.

It's total lies anyway.

The sole purpose of the nose is to direct the air after that point. It doesn't have any direct effect on the 'balance' of the car. It's what goes on behind the nose which is important, and the nose's job in that is to simply shape how the movement and pressure of air (or lack of usually) is formed.

There's no good nose or bad nose. That's why no 2 teams have the same nose cone. They'd all be identical otherwise. The philosophies are generally the same - the rules dictate that now - but each team has it's own interpretation. It's why everyone didn't simply move to the high nose-cone in the early 90's. They adopted it when it played to their advantage.

Lies?
So a wider nose doesnt help with balance?
Prove me wrong.
It seems people always disagree with me, and then just leave it at that and cant seem to tell me how im wrong.
This will be interesting.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

lol

there we go, i think we have enough proof now

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lies?
> So a wider nose doesnt help with balance?
> Prove me wrong.

I can't prove to you any more than anyone else.

But for what will be exactly 10 years this September, I've done lots of research on aerodynamics and the philosophies behind particularly racing cars and fuel-milage cars - 2 completely different theories on the design table, but that share many common factors - particularly regarding low pressure points.

I don't know the half of it, and won't pretend otherwise, but the nose cone is one of the simplest to understand. Anyone with an inch of knowledge should understand the nose itself does nothing other than detail what goes on underneath in conjunction with the front wing, and behind it. It shapes air and helps determine what goes on after - both in low pressure after the front wing, and channelling the air around the suspension, on to the keel(s), turning vanes and over and around the sidepods. The nose itself doesn't have anything to do with balance at all - it just decides how the rest of the car works.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2006 04:36PM by gav.

DID YOU READ MY POST?
i mentioned my take on wider noses and the STRUCTURAL gains ffs.
I never mentioned about the aero gains, the only aero info i sed was there could a better venturi effect with a wider nose.
The rest was about possible bending flexing etc, CAUSED BY THE AERO LOADS.

I can't prove to you any more than anyone else.

haha lol
and yet you post that i lie :/

and yes if you think i post bullshit ffs ask some1 who WILL know.

Fuking email bob bell?

I know im right.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

IM @#$%& BORED OF THIS. STFU


:P

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2006 05:13PM by DaveEllis.

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DID YOU READ MY POST?
> i mentioned my take on wider noses and the
> STRUCTURAL gains ffs.
> I never mentioned about the aero gains, the only
> aero info i sed was there could a better venturi
> effect with a wider nose.
> The rest was about possible bending flexing etc,
> CAUSED BY THE AERO LOADS.
>
> I can't prove to you any more than anyone else.
>
> haha lol
> and yet you post that i lie :/
>
> and yes if you think i post bullshit ffs ask some1
> who WILL know.
>
> Fuking email bob bell?
>
> I know im right.

Right. Let us start from the off. Structural gains are 0. From my knowledge of working with carbon fibre, the hollower a set shape is, the less structurally sound it is. Think of standing on a big box, compared to a little box - generally, any given material, the little box will withstand you longer than the big box. It's the same with composites. I don't have a degree in working with composites, but I was the designer of a carbon fibre chassis for a team back in 1996.

2nd. You mentioned balance. I don't believe you meant in the financial sense.

3rd. If a nice big fat wide nose was better, how come of the top 2 teams, the winner had the skinniest nose on the grid, and for 2006, the runner-up has returned to a little narrow nose. It's generalising, therefore it's nonsense. Each team takes which design suits them most. Ferrari a big fate wide nose. McLaren and Renault an ickle weeny one. A wide nose is not better than a narrow one.

Just a quick note, about balance that's utter bullshit. here's why.

do you think that because a wider nose is "bigger" then because it weighs a touch more than a narrow nose that it helps push down on the front end or something? because tbh a matter of not even a kilo on the amount of material doesn't have any effect on the balance when you have something over 6000 N of downforce generated by the front wing.. it's just plain wrong I'm afraid and when it's stated as fact it's jsut irritating. as for structural stuff, again not really. the nose is bolted to the monocoque so the only force it transfers is the downward force from the front wing, which turns into a moment when cornering.. but you can get similar stiffnesses from narrow noses as you get from big fat ones because of the open area inside them.

as gav said it's airflow.

seriously chet, go and @#$%& well learn what you're talking about so you can talk about it with some knowledge rather than assuming you know everything...

As I said on the previous page, different views are okay, but if you disagree, don't take it to a personal level. I guess you guys didn't read that. Thread locked.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.