Low nose safety

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Adrian Newey said before the start of the season that the new low noses could be dangerous. It was claimed that a car could be launched when it was rear-ended and potentially increase the chances of a cockpit intrusive impact.

Look at how the rear of the Williams was lifted into the air when it was struck.
http://sports.ndtv.com/images/stories/massa-crash-640.jpg

And this was at fairly low speed.

[donKey jote]

retrofit them with (red) bullbars... job done :andrea:

[steveaki13]

I can see the point.

Think about Massa and the risk of being flipped when the car behind scoops it up and then potentially over as it hits the ground. Also Kobayshi, if he had been going faster the Williams may have ridden up his nose and into the Caterhams cockpit. The real danger is that a Car will slide almost completely underneath another car.

That all said. We have had low noses before. The early 2000s had some low noses too I seem to remember.

[AndyL]

We also know that the high noses were dangerous, Mark Webber knows all about that.

Johnny Herbert suggested they should be looking at the back of the car - a lower crash structure could reduce the likelihood of this sort of thing.

[steveaki13]

True. Ultimately I think any nose could be dangerous. I mean you could never remove all danger in these incidents.

[Mark]

Remember that prior to about 1995, all the cars had low noses.

[Doc Austin]

No matter what you do to improve safety in one area, it always seems to compromise something else.

A good solution would be to mandate dimensions for the nose, including a minimum/maximum height, and then the same for the rear. Make the two heights different so nose I always slightly higher than the rear. Even that is not going to guarantee cars can't go over/under, but it should help.

If nothing else, there needs to be some sort of rules adjustment (for next year) to get rid of the ugly, uhhhhmm....... protrusions sticking out the noses. The McLaren is probably the best looking car on the grid, but it still has an ugly, uhhhhhmmmm........ protrusion hanging off the front.

The Sauber seem to have the best solution to making the nose a bit less attractive and......... uhhhhmmmm..... suggestive, but it doesn't seem to help it go very fast.

[Doc Austin]

....................

[Doc Austin]

.......................

[Doc Austin]

Sorry. It wouldn't allow me to post and now it shows up three times!

[Doc Austin]

Sorry. It wouldn't allow me to post and now it shows up three times!

[steveaki13]

Wow Triple Post then double post.

Nice work Doc. :p :devil: :devil: :devil:

[Doc Austin]

Apparently there is only one thing I can do right..........................


https://vimeo.com/85896123

[call_me_andrew]

It would have been a smarter move to ensure the nose lines up with the rear crash structure.

There's only one way to keep cars on the ground during collisions: surround the wheels (front and back) with bodywork.

[Mia 01]

Better the nose goes under the car than into the driver.

Thats the purpose.

[minardi]

Better the nose goes under the car than into the driver.

Thats the purpose.

Not if the car continues underneath, and the car in front goes into the driver.

[big_sw2000]

How do all other single seaters manage. Most forms use a low nose.

Steve

[Mia 01]

There was a rule change for this year and one of the main reasons for the low noses is because of care of the drivers.

[call_me_andrew]

How do all other single seaters manage. Most forms use a low nose.

Steve

The only single seat cars using a low nose are IndyCar, and that's because they race on ovals. Furthermore, Formula One is the last single seat series that hasn't become a spec series... yet.

[big_sw2000]

The only single seat cars using a low nose are IndyCar, and that's because they race on ovals. Furthermore, Formula One is the last single seat series that hasn't become a spec series... yet.

Formula 2. World series by Renault.
I wouldn't exactly call a GP2 car, high nose either. Although, its not as low as F1, maybe a good compromise. Certainly notan ugly look

Steve

[anfield5]

At the end of the day low nose or high nose or something else. In a nose to tail impact, both have positive features and both can cause problems.

I did a silly experiment. I made two lego cars that were no more than a square block on wheels, we filmed them creashuing into each other basically flat surface to flat surface, in most if not all occasions one or both leapt into the air. To me this was a good illustration of the fact that no matter what you do - in a front to rear impact, one or both cars can be lifted off the ground in some way and no matter what you do this can't be completely mitigated against.

[steveaki13]

At the end of the day low nose or high nose or something else. In a nose to tail impact, both have positive features and both can cause problems.

I did a silly experiment. I made two lego cars that were no more than a square block on wheels, we filmed them creashuing into each other basically flat surface to flat surface, in most if not all occasions one or both leapt into the air. To me this was a good illustration of the fact that no matter what you do - in a front to rear impact, one or both cars can be lifted off the ground in some way and no matter what you do this can't be completely mitigated against.

That's where F1's aero centres are going wrong. They should abandon wind tunnels and Computers and use Lego... ;)

Good point though. I think whatever is done, crashes will always be dangerous.

[anfield5]

The other thing to consider is this. Most front to rear impacts have a degree of wheel-on-wheel action. i.e. the front wheel of the following car hits the rear whell of the leading car. This is why the following car is often launched into space. This isn't going to change based on if the noses are high or low. The only way to do this is to have wheel giards a-la IRL (please no!!) or go back to Tyrrell-style bluff noses.