Modesty Panel - Another Grey area arguement?

[JJMonty]

Hey guys,

An interesting conversation developed in my uni class today - we were reading through some of the FIA rules, in particular about the modesty panel. From the way we have read the rules... it seems like it is open for controvesy i.e. a loop hole.

The theory is for the panel to hide the slope in the nose like so... http://postimage.org/image/6keda9it7/

But the rules are fairly loose and doesn't really state how it cannot affect the aerodynamics....... we reckon that we might see some F1 cars coming to the test sessions (or launching their car) with a panel that looks like this! http://postimage.org/image/uhmuhq2rf/ In effect, creating the original height of the nose again!

Lotus claimed they won't be using it as the weight is more than the aero advantage is worth, but I'm calling bullshit on that because the weight of the cars will be upped a couple of KG's to compensate for the panels.

I'm expecting to see loop holes similar to this exploited and another debate similar to the blown defusor starting off again.

What do you guys think?

[nome66]

or maybe teams could just not design a car that has the step.
look closely you'll notice...

this modesty panel nonsense should never happen

[mario]

Hey guys,

An interesting conversation developed in my uni class today - we were reading through some of the FIA rules, in particular about the modesty panel. From the way we have read the rules... it seems like it is open for controvesy i.e. a loop hole.

The theory is for the panel to hide the slope in the nose like so... http://postimage.org/image/6keda9it7/

But the rules are fairly loose and doesn't really state how it cannot affect the aerodynamics....... we reckon that we might see some F1 cars coming to the test sessions (or launching their car) with a panel that looks like this! http://postimage.org/image/uhmuhq2rf/ In effect, creating the original height of the nose again!

Lotus claimed they won't be using it as the weight is more than the aero advantage is worth, but I'm calling bullshit on that because the weight of the cars will be upped a couple of KG's to compensate for the panels.

I'm expecting to see loop holes similar to this exploited and another debate similar to the blown defusor starting off again.

What do you guys think?

My understanding of the regulations was that the increase in minimum weight was coming about because the modifications that Pirelli are making to the tyres (the stiffer shoulders and more flexible sidewalls) have made them heavier - I've seen a figure of 200g more for each front tyre and 700g more for each rear tyre. That 1.8kg difference in weight is the reason why the minimum weight is going up from 640kg to 642kg, as far as I'm aware.

As for the nose designs you've posted, although in theory the latter one could be theoretically possible, I suspect that it'd be very difficult to make the crash structure that thin and still pass the front impact test (bear in mind that the structure of the modesty panel is designed to break apart fairly easily on impact). It also misses the main advantage of the higher nose in the first place - it isn't so much about the height of the upper surface, but more to do with getting the underside of the nosecone as high as possible to maximise airflow underneath the nose and beneath the car, and your posited alternative solution would still be limited in that respect.

That said, you do have a point about the possibility of the rules being subverted by the teams in order to raise the entire nose section - scarbsf1 has posted an interesting article on his site about some possible interpretations of the regulations, and has suggested that there is a way in which the teams could use the panel to effectively raise the forward section of the nose higher into the air.

One means to circumvent the 2012\2013 nose rules is to use the fairing in a more aggressive way. The nose structure that forms the crash protection must not be higher than 550mm above the floor. However more airflow could be forced under the car for more downforce if the nose were higher. As the fairing is allowed to be as high as 625mm, this could form a new nose tip 75mm higher than the rules intended. With a shorter structure nose cone, the modesty fairing could instead be shaped to form a very high nose for better aerodynamic performance. This is likely to be viewed as marginal on the rules, but the rules do not preclude it.

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2013/01/30/an ... nd-trends/

His comments are interesting, although given the fact that it appears such a solution would be skirting very close to the limits of the regulations, it'd be a bold team to try such a move.

[Londoner]

My solution?



Simple, just make the teams use early-90s style front wings and low noses, then there won't be any of this stepped nose/modesty panel crap. Where is the common sense, for heaven's sake?

[FMecha]

My solution?



Simple, just make the teams use early-90s style front wings and low noses, then there won't be any of this stepped nose/modesty panel crap. Where is the common sense, for heaven's sake?

Modern technicalities proably won't allow for that, though.

[pi314159]

My solution?



Simple, just make the teams use early-90s style front wings and low noses, then there won't be any of this stepped nose/modesty panel crap. Where is the common sense, for heaven's sake?

For 2014 the maximum nose height is 185mm, so I doubt that anyone will use a stepped nose then.

[mario]

My solution?



Simple, just make the teams use early-90s style front wings and low noses, then there won't be any of this stepped nose/modesty panel crap. Where is the common sense, for heaven's sake?

For 2014 the maximum nose height is 185mm, so I doubt that anyone will use a stepped nose then.

Exactly - the stepped noses only exist at the moment because the FIA has conceded to the demands of the teams, who want to maximise the height of the noses in order to maximise underbody airflow.
If the FIA had had its way on the matter, we would probably already be using those lower noses because the FIA believes that they are safer for the drivers (Charlie Whiting did mention at the beginning of 2012 that the FIA were considering bringing in the low nose regulations for 2013 instead of 2014, but the teams blocked the move because they wanted to continue using the same chassis design that they had in 2011).

[JJMonty]

As for the nose designs you've posted, although in theory the latter one could be theoretically possible, I suspect that it'd be very difficult to make the crash structure that thin and still pass the front impact test (bear in mind that the structure of the modesty panel is designed to break apart fairly easily on impact). It also misses the main advantage of the higher nose in the first place - it isn't so much about the height of the upper surface, but more to do with getting the underside of the nosecone as high as possible to maximise airflow underneath the nose and beneath the car, and your posited alternative solution would still be limited in that respect.

Sorry - my MS Paint skills aren't very good, I was trying to draw something similar to what ScarbsF1 has shown

But if the panel is supposed to break apart, then the actual nose section would just become a bit shorter + thicker to compensate for the crash structure, with the panel covering over it to create a smooth surface (similar to the diagram on your reference). If that makes any sense :S

Though I do agree, modesty panels are a load of rubbish and are going to become another reason for teams to get things banned...... It is a shame aerodynamics influence a car so much at these kind of speeds, because if physics didn't exist, then I would be a major fan of brining back the early 90's noses again

[Onxy Wrecked]

Grey areas show up in rules all the time. Expect this to be exploited like the Penske PC23 with the Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine.

[Svenko Wankerov]

My solution?



Simple, just make the teams use early-90s style front wings and low noses, then there won't be any of this stepped nose/modesty panel crap. Where is the common sense, for heaven's sake?

Well there is definitely nothing modest about Nigel.

[dr-baker]

Those early- to mid-1990s (pre-raised noses) are the best-looking F1 cars in my opinion, and the sooner we return to those noses, the better!

[pasta_maldonado]

Mario, or someone with a higher technical knowledge than myself, can you explain to me just how much performance a high nose can gain? How can directing airflow under the nose increase downforce, when there is no wing king structure underneath?

[JJMonty]

Mario, or someone with a higher technical knowledge than myself, can you explain to me just how much performance a high nose can gain? How can directing airflow under the nose increase downforce, when there is no wing king structure underneath?

The higher the nose is, the more air can get forced underneath the car. It helps to generate better ground effects as the diffuser has more air to churn out. (In its most simplified explanation )

[IdeFan]

Mario, or someone with a higher technical knowledge than myself, can you explain to me just how much performance a high nose can gain? How can directing airflow under the nose increase downforce, when there is no wing king structure underneath?

The height of the nose determines how much air is pushed under the car, and how much goes over. Air going over the car will eventually generate downforce at the rear wing, air going under will generate downforce at the diffuser.

In 2008, the regulations permitted a low, wide rear wing and did not heavily restrict the placement of aerodynamic devices. Teams opted for low noses, pushing a lot air over the car, where it was cleaned up and tweaked by the many aero devices before generating efficient downforce at the rear wing.

For 2009, the rear wing became much higher and narrower, and most aero devices were banned, this made the rear wing much less efficient at generating downforce. At the same time, the downforce from the diffuser was cut, but innovations like double deck diffusers and exhaust driven diffusers mitigated some of this loss. The teams now opt for a high nose, sending air under the car to the diffuser, because they can generate downforce more efficiently than they can at the rear wing.

[Faustus]

Grey areas show up in rules all the time. Expect this to be exploited like the Penske PC23 with the Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine.

Exploiting the regulations is part of the game. The regulations are the same for everyone and everyone has access to them, it's up to each team to exploit them as creatively as possible while remaining within the letter of the regulations.

[JJMonty]

Grey areas show up in rules all the time. Expect this to be exploited like the Penske PC23 with the Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine.

Exploiting the regulations is part of the game. The regulations are the same for everyone and everyone has access to them, it's up to each team to exploit them as creatively as possible while remaining within the letter of the regulations.

I agree, it is fantastic to see what creativity people come up with. But most if it gets banned now due to "grey areas" or "not within the spirit of the rules". F1 cars are now looking the same and sound the same They lack the variety of engieering that F1 once had and it just makes stuff like the modesty panel become another reason for the FIA to kick up a fuss :/ i.e. why bother being creative if you get punished for it.


On another note, it would appear Ferrari and Force India are using solutions similar to the ones mentioned at the start of this topic!

[andrew2209]

My feeling with using the modesty panel to create a higher nose is that it'd be banned, on safety grounds.

[AndreaModa]

My feeling with using the modesty panel to create a higher nose is that it'd be banned, on safety grounds.

Perhaps, but consider that the earlier high noses were solid and part of the crash structure on the car. The panels there now are lightweight, easily destructable "add-ons" which in the event of a crash would break much more easily than the nose structure itself I'd imagine. In that sense perhaps they'll be okay because they pose less of a risk of injuring another driver?

[Onxy Wrecked]

Grey areas show up in rules all the time. Expect this to be exploited like the Penske PC23 with the Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine.

Exploiting the regulations is part of the game. The regulations are the same for everyone and everyone has access to them, it's up to each team to exploit them as creatively as possible while remaining within the letter of the regulations.

Except that F1 seems to make the restrictions so tight that a new rule will be made when one car exploits it too far and finds great success or a Force India suddenly becomes a top half of the points car instead of a bottom half points car.

[mario]

My feeling with using the modesty panel to create a higher nose is that it'd be banned, on safety grounds.

Perhaps, but consider that the earlier high noses were solid and part of the crash structure on the car. The panels there now are lightweight, easily destructable "add-ons" which in the event of a crash would break much more easily than the nose structure itself I'd imagine. In that sense perhaps they'll be okay because they pose less of a risk of injuring another driver?

It isn't so much the panel itself, but the fact that it can be used to effectively raise the front crash structure too - that, by comparison, is going to be the primary concern, since we are now getting back to the nose heights that they had circa 2010-2011 when the front crash structures on some cars was higher than the side impact protection.
In principle, the FIA could probably change the regulations if it wanted if it is concerned about the height of the noses - the sporting regulations do allow the FIA to make changes at this point in the season on safety grounds, and they could probably put defend any decision to ban this particular interpretation by arguing that it is dangerous in the event of a T-bone impact. Whether it would actually make any sort of decision like that is another matter - the teams have fought hard to push back the implementation of the lower noses for some time, and would no doubt kick up a substantial amount of trouble if the FIA tried to make any changes this late in the off season.

[Klon]

Except that F1 seems to make the restrictions so tight that a new rule will be made when one car exploits it too far and finds great success or a Force India suddenly becomes a top half of the points car instead of a bottom half points car.

Because, guess what, when that happens, most of the times the result is VETTELWINSLOL (and obviously the proper equivalents for other great drivers): when that happens, TV ratings drop and fans piss and moan about how the sport is "boring now". You can have either close and exciting racing or technological freedom: we have come too far in technological development in motorsport to be on an equal playing field.

[Onxy Wrecked]

Except that F1 seems to make the restrictions so tight that a new rule will be made when one car exploits it too far and finds great success or a Force India suddenly becomes a top half of the points car instead of a bottom half points car.

Because, guess what, when that happens, most of the times the result is VETTELWINSLOL (and obviously the proper equivalents for other great drivers): when that happens, TV ratings drop and fans piss and moan about how the sport is "boring now". You can have either close and exciting racing or technological freedom: we have come too far in technological development in motorsport to be on an equal playing field.

Vettel wins as he had the talent to win in a terrible Toro Rosso. Look at Speed, Liuzzi, and Bourdais in the Toro Rosso and their results. Not so good.

[Salamander]

Vettel wins as he had the talent to win in a terrible Toro Rosso. Look at Speed, Liuzzi, and Bourdais in the Toro Rosso and their results. Not so good.

The 2008 Toro Rosso was by no means a bad car. Plus Vettel had the advantage of being one of only two cars with a proper wet setup at Monza, the other being his teammate who had a steering wheel problem which put him a lap down at the start, plus the general equaliser that is the rain... it was not an easy win, but not nearly as difficult as it looks on paper. Also Bourdais was horribly unlucky in 2008; he could've been on the podium in Spa but for the sudden downpour at the end which set him well back, plus the steering problem in Monza, where he could've run up with Vettel all things considered, then the penalty in Fuji which was completely uncalled for. Bourdais was a lot better than his results showed.

Vettel is very talented, there is no doubt about that, but I don't think he'd be nearly as dominant if Ferrari were half as good at keeping their act together as Red Bull have been.

[Onxy Wrecked]

Vettel wins as he had the talent to win in a terrible Toro Rosso. Look at Speed, Liuzzi, and Bourdais in the Toro Rosso and their results. Not so good.

The 2008 Toro Rosso was by no means a bad car. Plus Vettel had the advantage of being one of only two cars with a proper wet setup at Monza, the other being his teammate who had a steering wheel problem which put him a lap down at the start, plus the general equaliser that is the rain... it was not an easy win, but not nearly as difficult as it looks on paper. Also Bourdais was horribly unlucky in 2008; he could've been on the podium in Spa but for the sudden downpour at the end which set him well back, plus the steering problem in Monza, where he could've run up with Vettel all things considered, then the penalty in Fuji which was completely uncalled for. Bourdais was a lot better than his results showed.

Vettel is very talented, there is no doubt about that, but I don't think he'd be nearly as dominant if Ferrari were half as good at keeping their act together as Red Bull have been.

I always thought that Toro Rosso cars were mid pack at best. I guess having the right setup would make a mediocre car great when everyone else didn't expect rain.

[Salamander]

Vettel wins as he had the talent to win in a terrible Toro Rosso. Look at Speed, Liuzzi, and Bourdais in the Toro Rosso and their results. Not so good.

The 2008 Toro Rosso was by no means a bad car. Plus Vettel had the advantage of being one of only two cars with a proper wet setup at Monza, the other being his teammate who had a steering wheel problem which put him a lap down at the start, plus the general equaliser that is the rain... it was not an easy win, but not nearly as difficult as it looks on paper. Also Bourdais was horribly unlucky in 2008; he could've been on the podium in Spa but for the sudden downpour at the end which set him well back, plus the steering problem in Monza, where he could've run up with Vettel all things considered, then the penalty in Fuji which was completely uncalled for. Bourdais was a lot better than his results showed.

Vettel is very talented, there is no doubt about that, but I don't think he'd be nearly as dominant if Ferrari were half as good at keeping their act together as Red Bull have been.

I always thought that Toro Rosso cars were mid pack at best. I guess having the right setup would make a mediocre car great when everyone else didn't expect rain.

They usually are, it's just the 2008 car was capable of regularly scoring points for a good chunk of the season, they were usually around the 4th or 5th best car from mid-season onwards.

[nome66]

2008 is funny to me because the junior team finished the season better than the senior team.

[DemocalypseNow]

2008 is funny to me because the junior team finished the season better than the senior team.

Danish pop group Junior Senior disbanded in 2008? I don't understand what that has to do with F1.

[nome66]

oh hardy har har
i meant toro rosso and red bull

[Wallio]

Grey areas show up in rules all the time. Expect this to be exploited like the Penske PC23 with the Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine.

Oh FFS sake this wasNOT a grey area. It was a clear rule in the books for 1994. And USAC approved the motor in late 1993 after the rules were announced. No grey area. It amazes me how many people over here are STILL bitter about that.....

[Faustus]

Grey areas show up in rules all the time. Expect this to be exploited like the Penske PC23 with the Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine.

Oh FFS sake this wasNOT a grey area. It was a clear rule in the books for 1994. And USAC approved the motor in late 1993 after the rules were announced. No grey area. It amazes me how many people over here are STILL bitter about that.....

And it wasn't the only one either. Michael Greenfield built one as well and surely no-one in their right minds thinks that the Menard Buicks were production-based engines?

[Wallio]

Grey areas show up in rules all the time. Expect this to be exploited like the Penske PC23 with the Mercedes-Benz pushrod engine.

Oh FFS sake this was NOT a grey area. It was a clear rule in the books for 1994. And USAC approved the motor in late 1993 after the rules were announced. No grey area. It amazes me how many people over here are STILL bitter about that.....

And it wasn't the only one either. Michael Greenfield built one as well and surely no-one in their right minds thinks that the Menard Buicks were production-based engines?

Yup. The Greenfield ran in 1995 as well, but again DNQ'd, both times due to electronics gremlins IIRC. Rick Hendrick and Edelbrock Performance had one on the dyno ready for 1995, but when USAC cut the boost, they scrapped it. There was also another 4th "209" pushrod, that supposedly turned into an ALMS motor, but I've only heard rumors. Brayton maybe? As for the Menard Buicks, they were built into custom designed Lola Chassis to boot, unlike any of the "209s".

I know this is off topic but it is a massive sore spot for me. It amazes me how many racing fans over here, still to this day say "Penske cheated in 1994", despite all the evidence out there. But of course so many people still think John DeLorean sold drugs too......

[dr-baker]

But of course so many people still think John DeLorean sold drugs too......

Some people think he's dead, but I suspect he merely got as High as 88 mph and Tripped into the future...

[nome66]

he is dead though. found in his apartment designing a new car. shame.

[Wallio]

he is dead though. found in his apartment designing a new car. shame.

Which if you've seen the sketches, would have been epic. A salesman to the end, he founded "Delorean Time" (see what he did there?) to sell high end watches to fund the car's design. He even sold a few (watches).

[Faustus]

Oh FFS sake this was NOT a grey area. It was a clear rule in the books for 1994. And USAC approved the motor in late 1993 after the rules were announced. No grey area. It amazes me how many people over here are STILL bitter about that.....

And it wasn't the only one either. Michael Greenfield built one as well and surely no-one in their right minds thinks that the Menard Buicks were production-based engines?

Yup. The Greenfield ran in 1995 as well, but again DNQ'd, both times due to electronics gremlins IIRC. Rick Hendrick and Edelbrock Performance had one on the dyno ready for 1995, but when USAC cut the boost, they scrapped it. There was also another 4th "209" pushrod, that supposedly turned into an ALMS motor, but I've only heard rumors. Brayton maybe? As for the Menard Buicks, they were built into custom designed Lola Chassis to boot, unlike any of the "209s".

I know this is off topic but it is a massive sore spot for me. It amazes me how many racing fans over here, still to this day say "Penske cheated in 1994", despite all the evidence out there. But of course so many people still think John DeLorean sold drugs too......

A.J. Foyt had a turbo Chevrolet V6 stock-block based engine that he ran at Indy for 3 years, between 1986 and 1988. Ryan Falconer was involved with it. He designed the IMSA Chevy V6 turbo, among other engines. Must have been a decent engine because it was always run in old chassis and never embarassed itself. In 1990, AJ ran the engine in a March 86C and wasn't far off the speeds of the Alfa Romeo engines.