Pre-Season 2012 New Car Images & Discussion

[Speshal]

I see the boffins at Ferrari have been reading their history books,

 

[Road of Bones]

You know, I've always struggled to understand why they called it the "sharknose" Ferrari - I'd have thought the "Nostrils" Ferrari would have been more appropriate...

 

[Speshal]

You know, I've always struggled to understand why they called it the "sharknose" Ferrari - I'd have thought the "Nostrils" Ferrari would have been more appropriate...

?

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

 

[Road of Bones]

That's the image that always springs to mind Chad...

 

[sushifiesta]

I just found this short interview with Adrian Newey on the Sky Sports web-site: http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,12870_7494396,00.html

He says that the air intake in the stepped nose is just for driver cooling. Whether that is the whole truth or not I'm not sure, I guess we'll find out in the coming weeks.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

I'm calling it... F-duct v2.0!

 

[Brogan]

Paul Hembery of Pirelli doesn't like the new car designs.

AUTOSPORT understands that some technical directors have already held discussions with the FIA about the look of the stepped noses, although there has not yet been any move to change the chassis regulations for 2013 to ensure there is a smoother transition to the nose.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97412

 

[Andyoak]

He's got a very valid point...

My understanding is that the high nose was introduced for its aero benefits and the FIA are moving back towards low noses to reduce reliance on aero.

Why not go the whole hog and say that the underside of the nose cannot be more than, say, 100mm above the underside of the front wing?

It appears from this forum and others that the low nose cars of the 80's and 90's are liked for their clean lines and low noses.

 

[Galahad]

I think the low nose is all about safety, rather than aero. The FIA were concerned about the nose intruding into the side of the cockpit or riding up and hitting a helmet.

The low-low nose cars of the 80s were just as bad, because in a front-rear shunt the driver behind was in danger of the gearbox of the car in front ending up on his head. There's a compromise in there somewhere.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

The low-low nose cars of the 80s were just as bad, because in a front-rear shunt the driver behind was in danger of the gearbox of the car in front ending up on his head. There's a compromise in there somewhere.

So ideally you want the nose lower but not too low, say at or maybe just above axle-height, so as not to submarine under the car ahead?

 

[Galahad]

So ideally you want the nose lower but not too low, say at or maybe just above axle-height, so as not to submarine under the car ahead?

Sounds good - as long as the exhausts aren't protuding beyond the rear wing.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Ok, how about something like this then (the top one that is)?

 

[Galahad]

Are we saying the FIA have got something right?

 

[Andyoak]

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

No; I'm saying Mclaren may have.

 

[Galahad]

I'm sure that will be a comfort, if their car isn't the fastest, that it is possibly (based on a completely unscientific interpretation) the safest.

 

[Mike]

I don't think anybody has posted this yet. Radically different, to say the least. <snip image>

It looks like someone has taken this image and adjusted the perspective to be more accurate:

http://blog.auto.it/autosprint/files/2012/02/musoamuso.jpg

 

[Brogan]

That's much better!

Gives a far more realistic comparison and in fact only highlights even more the difference in the nose heights.

 

[Kewee]

No wonder Lewis keeps bumping into things. He's got no idea where his nose begins and ends.