SimScale CAE Forum

1990s Formula Car High and Low Noses Comparison

I created a new simulation project called '1990s F1 High and Low Noses':

1990s F1 High and Low Noses CFD Simulations


More of my public projects can be found here.

1 Like

1990s Formula Car High and Low Noses Comparison

Introduction

In the early 1990s high nose designs appeared to formula 1.
Soon, most formula cars came to adopt high nose.

In this study, sevral typical nose designs during the early years of the high nose appearance were simulated to know its characteristics.

Models

Model Overview

  • Flat Bottomed Floor
  • Overall Width : 2150 [mm]
  • Overall Length : 4440 [mm]
  • Wheel Base : 2940 [mm]


Nose and Front Wing Types

Low Nose

High Nose + Anhedral Front Wing

High Nose + Horizontal Front Wing

High Nose and High Monocoque

High Nose and High Monocoque + Full Span Front Flap

GIF Animation Comparison of the Models

Simulations

Conditions

  • Freestream Velocity Magnitude Value : 40 [m/s]
  • Ride Height : Front / Rear = 20 [mm] / 35 [mm]
  • RF : Radiator Flow [m3/s]

Results

Low Nose

Coef. Whole Car Body & Wings Fr Wing & Nose Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Cd 0.9322 0.6169 0.1063 0.0892 0.0171 0.2744 0.2361 0.1313 0.1840
Cl -1.7685 -1.9961 -0.6532 -0.6298 -0.0234 -0.6418 -0.7011 0.0928 0.1348
Clf -0.6182 -0.7464 -0.8112 -0.7823 -0.0290 -0.0798 0.1446 0.1073 0.0208
Clr -1.1503 -1.2497 0.1581 0.1525 0.0056 -0.5620 -0.8457 -0.0146 0.1140
CoP 0.6504 0.6261 -0.2420 -0.2421 -0.2377 0.8756 1.2063 -0.1570 0.8454
L/D -1.8971 -3.2357 -6.1424 -7.0570 -1.3689 -2.3388 -2.9689 0.7067 0.7326
RF m3/s 1.0228

High Nose + Anhedral Fr Wing

Coef. Whole Car Body & Wings Fr Wing & Nose Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Cd 0.9291 0.6134 0.0962 0.0866 0.0096 0.2807 0.2365 0.1318 0.1839
Cl -1.7557 -1.9796 -0.5455 -0.5069 -0.0386 -0.7309 -0.7031 0.0917 0.1321
Clf -0.5216 -0.6487 -0.6744 -0.6266 -0.0478 -0.1193 0.1449 0.1063 0.0208
Clr -1.2341 -1.3308 0.1289 0.1197 0.0092 -0.6116 -0.8481 -0.0146 0.1113
CoP 0.7029 0.6723 -0.2362 -0.2361 -0.2376 0.8368 1.2061 -0.1595 0.8424
L/D -1.8896 -3.2272 -5.6699 -5.8535 -4.0166 -2.6039 -2.9733 0.6956 0.7185
RF m3/s 1.0411

High Nose + Horizontal Fr Wing

Coef. Whole Car Body & Wings Fr Wing & Nose Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Cd 0.9311 0.6157 0.1039 0.0890 0.0149 0.2757 0.2362 0.1313 0.1841
Cl -1.7681 -1.9910 -0.6064 -0.6040 -0.0023 -0.6841 -0.7005 0.0918 0.1311
Clf -0.5809 -0.7081 -0.7516 -0.7499 -0.0017 -0.1011 0.1446 0.1064 0.0208
Clr -1.1872 -1.2829 0.1452 0.1458 -0.0006 -0.5830 -0.8451 -0.0146 0.1103
CoP 0.6715 0.6443 -0.2395 -0.2414 0.2569 0.8522 1.2064 -0.1587 0.8410
L/D -1.8989 -3.2336 -5.8388 -6.7886 -0.1575 -2.4813 -2.9662 0.6993 0.7122
RF m3/s 1.0297

High Nose and Monocoque

Coef. Whole Car Body & Wings Fr Wing & Nose Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Cd 0.9412 0.6229 0.1050 0.0886 0.0164 0.2834 0.2345 0.1309 0.1875
Cl -1.7754 -2.0004 -0.5961 -0.5981 0.0020 -0.7044 -0.6998 0.0901 0.1348
Clf -0.5749 -0.7007 -0.7385 -0.7424 0.0039 -0.1062 0.1440 0.1046 0.0212
Clr -1.2006 -1.2996 0.1424 0.1443 -0.0019 -0.5982 -0.8438 -0.0145 0.1136
CoP 0.6762 0.6497 -0.2389 -0.2413 -0.9543 0.8492 1.2057 -0.1612 0.8426
L/D -1.8863 -3.2115 -5.6783 -6.7542 0.1215 -2.4860 -2.9837 0.6884 0.7192
RF m3/s 1.0420

High Nose and Monocoque + Full Span Flap

Coef. Whole Car Body & Wings Fr Wing & Nose Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Cd 0.9476 0.6288 0.1260 0.1092 0.0169 0.2690 0.2338 0.1303 0.1885
Cl -1.8414 -2.0692 -0.8068 -0.8181 0.0113 -0.5712 -0.6912 0.0902 0.1377
Clf -0.7764 -0.9024 -1.0018 -1.0172 0.0154 -0.0435 0.1429 0.1046 0.0213
Clr -1.0650 -1.1668 0.1950 0.1991 -0.0041 -0.5277 -0.8342 -0.0145 0.1163
CoP 0.5783 0.5639 -0.2417 -0.2434 -0.3657 0.9238 1.2068 -0.1603 0.8450
L/D -1.9431 -3.2906 -6.4020 -7.4945 0.6683 -2.1234 -2.9565 0.6920 0.7302
RF m3/s 0.9741

Comparisons

Whole Body Coefficients Comparison

Whole Body Coefficients
Coef. Low Nose Anhedral
Fr Wing
Horizontal
Fr Wing
High Monocoque High Monocoque
+ Full Flap
Cd 0.9322 0.9291 0.9311 0.9412 0.9476
Cl -1.7685 -1.7557 -1.7681 -1.7754 -1.8414
Clf -0.6182 -0.5216 -0.5809 -0.5749 -0.7764
Clr -1.1503 -1.2341 -1.1872 -1.2006 -1.0650
CoP 0.6504 0.7029 0.6715 0.6762 0.5783
L/D -1.8971 -1.8896 -1.8989 -1.8863 -1.9431
RF m3/s 1.0228 1.0411 1.0297 1.0420 0.9741
Whole Body Coefficient Differences
  • Control : Low Nose
Coef. Low Nose Anhedral
Fr Wing
Horizontal
Fr Wing
High Monocoque High Monocoque
+ Full Flap
Cd 0.0000 -0.0031 -0.0011 0.0090 0.0155
Cl 0.0000 0.0128 0.0004 -0.0070 -0.0729
Clf 0.0000 0.0966 0.0373 0.0433 -0.1582
Clr 0.0000 -0.0839 -0.0369 -0.0503 0.0853
CoP 0.0000 0.0525 0.0210 0.0258 -0.0721
L/D 0.0000 0.0075 -0.0017 0.0108 -0.0460
RF m3/s 0.0000 0.0183 0.0069 0.0193 -0.0486

  • The drags (Cd) and the downforce total amounts (Cl) of “Anhedral Fr Wing”, “Horizontal Fr Wing” and “High Monocoque” are not different much with that of “Low Nose”.
  • The downforce distributions (Clf,Clr,CoP) of “Anhedral Fr Wing”, “Horizontal Fr Wing” and “High Monocoque” shift to the rear at each rate.
    • The shift of “Anhedral Fr Wing” is the largest.
  • “Full Span Flap” greatly increases the front down force (Clf).
    • On the other hand, the rear down force (Clr) is greatly reduced.
    • L/D is improved, but it is common to improve when downforce increases, so it is necessary to evaluate after conditioning such as distribution.

Cl of Each Part Comparison

Cl Comparison
Types Whole Car Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Low Nose -1.7685 -0.6298 -0.0234 -0.6418 -0.7011 0.0928 0.1348
Anhedral
Fr Wing
-1.7557 -0.5069 -0.0386 -0.7309 -0.7031 0.0917 0.1321
Horizontal
Fr Wing
-1.7681 -0.6040 -0.0023 -0.6841 -0.7005 0.0918 0.1311
High Monocoque -1.7754 -0.5981 0.0020 -0.7044 -0.6998 0.0901 0.1348
High Monocoque
+ Full Span Flap
-1.8414 -0.8181 0.0113 -0.5712 -0.6912 0.0902 0.1377
Cl Differences Comparison
  • Control : Low Nose
Types Whole Car Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Low Nose 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Anhedral
Fr Wing
0.0128 0.1229 -0.0152 -0.0891 -0.0020 -0.0011 -0.0027
Horizontal
Fr Wing
0.0004 0.0257 0.0211 -0.0423 0.0006 -0.0010 -0.0037
High Monocoque -0.0070 0.0316 0.0254 -0.0626 0.0013 -0.0027 0.0000
High Monocoque
+ Full Span Flap
-0.0729 -0.1883 0.0347 0.0706 0.0099 -0.0026 0.0028

  • The “Fr Wing” downforces of “Anhedral Fr Wing”, “Horizontal Fr Wing” and “High Monocoque” decrease.
  • The “Body” downforces of “Anhedral Fr Wing”, “Horizontal Fr Wing” and “High Monocoque” increase.
  • “Full Span Flap” (Center Flap) increases “Fr Wing” downforce but significantly decreases “Body” downforce.

Pressure Comparison

Bottom Surfaces Pressure Comparison

GIF Animation of Bottom Surfaces Pressure Comparison

Each Still Images

  • The low pressure areas below the floors of “Anhedral Fr Wing”, “Horizontal Fr Wing” and “High Monocoque” are larger than “Low Nose”.
    • “High Nose” causes more air flow below the floor.
  • “Full Span Flap” (Center Flap) greatly decreases the low pressure area on the floor from “High Nose and Monocoque” only.
  • It is inferred that the amount of air flow in the area from the nose to the center of the front wing influences the amount of air flow below the floor.
Pressure Comparison Front-Left View

Summary

  • The drags (Cd) and the downforce total amounts (Cl) of “High Noses” are not different much with that of “Low Nose”.
  • The downforce distributions (Clf,Clr,CoP) of “High Noses” shift to the rear at each rate.
    • The “Fr Wing” downforces of “High Noses” decrease.
    • The “Body” downforces of “High Noses” increase.
    • The low pressure areas below the floors of “High Noses” are larger than “Low Nose”.
      • “High Nose” causes more air flow below the floor.
  • “Full Span Flap” (Center Flap) greatly increases the front down force (Clf), but the rear down force (Clr) is greatly reduced.
    • “Full Span Flap” greatly decreases the low pressure area on the floor bottom from “High Nose and Monocoque” only.
  • It is inferred that the amount of air flow in the area from the nose to the center of the front wing influences the amount of air flow below the floor.
6 Likes

I got a request for “Mono Post Nose” like Footwork Arrows FA12 (1991), so I simulated it additionally.


Mono Post Nose

Model

Mono Post Nose (Single Front Wing Stay)

GIF Animation Comparison of the Models

Simulations

Conditions

  • Freestream Velocity Magnitude Value : 40 [m/s]
  • Ride Height : Front / Rear = 20 [mm] / 35 [mm]
  • RF : Radiator Flow [m3/s]

Result

Mono Post Nose

Coef. Whole Car Body &
Wings
Fr Wing
& Nose
Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Cm 0.3067 0.2913 0.5464 -0.4414 -0.0002 0.2385 0.4944 0.0604 -0.0450
Cd 0.9307 0.6155 -0.1173 0.0885 0.0140 0.2770 0.2360 0.1314 0.1838
Cl -1.7688 -1.9922 0.6510 -0.5955 -0.0017 -0.6952 -0.6998 0.0917 0.1317
Clf -0.5777 -0.7048 0.3295 -0.7391 -0.0011 -0.1091 0.1445 0.1063 0.0208
Clr -1.1911 -1.2874 -0.1581 0.1436 -0.0006 -0.5861 -0.8443 -0.0146 0.1109
CoP 0.6734 0.6462 -0.2428 -0.2412 0.3582 0.8431 1.2064 -0.1590 0.8420
L/D -1.9005 -3.2366 -5.5483 -6.7288 -0.1219 -2.5097 -2.9652 0.6978 0.7166
RF m3/s 1.0381

Comparisons

Whole Car Coefficients Comparison

Whole Car Coefficients
Coef. Low Nose Anhedral
Fr Wing
Horizontal
Fr Wing
High Monocoque High Monocoque
+ Full Span Flap
Mono Post Nose
Cd 0.9322 0.9291 0.9311 0.9412 0.9476 0.9307
Cl -1.7685 -1.7557 -1.7681 -1.7754 -1.8414 -1.7688
Clf -0.6182 -0.5216 -0.5809 -0.5749 -0.7764 -0.5777
Clr -1.1503 -1.2341 -1.1872 -1.2006 -1.0650 -1.1911
CoP 0.6504 0.7029 0.6715 0.6762 0.5783 0.6734
L/D -1.8971 -1.8896 -1.8989 -1.8863 -1.9431 -1.9005
RF m3/s 1.0228 1.0411 1.0297 1.0420 0.9741 1.0381
Whole Car Coefficient Differences
  • Control : Low Nose
Coef. Low Nose Anhedral
Fr Wing
Horizontal
Fr Wing
High Monocoque High Monocoque
+ Full Span Flap
Mono Post Nose
Cd 0.0000 -0.0031 -0.0011 0.0090 0.0155 -0.0015
Cl 0.0000 0.0128 0.0004 -0.0070 -0.0729 -0.0003
Clf 0.0000 0.0966 0.0373 0.0433 -0.1582 0.0405
Clr 0.0000 -0.0839 -0.0369 -0.0503 0.0853 -0.0408
CoP 0.0000 0.0525 0.0210 0.0258 -0.0721 0.0230
L/D 0.0000 0.0075 -0.0017 0.0108 -0.0460 -0.0034
RF m3/s 0.0000 0.0183 0.0069 0.0193 -0.0486 0.0153


Enlarge the graph of “Mono Post Nose”, “Horizontal Fr Wing” and “High Monocoqe”


  • The coefficients of “Mono Post Nose” are similar to “Horizontal Fr Wing”.

Cl of Each Part Comparison

Cl Comparison
Types Whole Car Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Low Nose -1.7685 -0.6298 -0.0234 -0.6418 -0.7011 0.0928 0.1348
Anhedral Fr Wing -1.7557 -0.5069 -0.0386 -0.7309 -0.7031 0.0917 0.1321
Horizontal Fr Wing -1.7681 -0.6040 -0.0023 -0.6841 -0.7005 0.0918 0.1311
High Monocoque -1.7754 -0.5981 0.0020 -0.7044 -0.6998 0.0901 0.1348
High Monocoque + Full Span Flap -1.8414 -0.8181 0.0113 -0.5712 -0.6912 0.0902 0.1377
Mono Post Nose -1.7688 -0.5955 -0.0017 -0.6952 -0.6998 0.0917 0.1317
Cl Differences Comparison
  • Control : Low Nose
Types Whole Car Fr Wing Nose Body Rr Wing Fr Wheel Rr Wheel
Low Nose 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Anhedral Fr Wing 0.0128 0.1229 -0.0152 -0.0891 -0.0020 -0.0011 -0.0027
Horizontal Fr Wing 0.0004 0.0257 0.0211 -0.0423 0.0006 -0.0010 -0.0037
High Monocoque -0.0070 0.0316 0.0254 -0.0626 0.0013 -0.0027 0.0000
High Monocoque + Full Span Flap -0.0729 -0.1883 0.0347 0.0706 0.0099 -0.0026 0.0028
Mono Post Nose -0.0003 0.0343 0.0217 -0.0534 0.0013 -0.0011 -0.0031


Enlarge the graph of “Mono Post Nose”, “Horizontal Fr Wing” and “High Monocoqe”


  • The Cl s of the each part of “Mono Post Nose” are similar to “Horizontal Fr Wing”.

Pressure Comparison

Bottom Surfaces Pressure Comparison


Still Images



  • The pressure distribution of “Mono Post Nose” is similar to “Horizontal Fr Wing”.
Pressure Comparison Front-Left View - GIF Animation

Summary

  • The aerodynamic characteristics of “Mono Post Nose” are similar to “Horizontal Fr Wing”.
2 Likes

Hello. I am working on an assignment called F1 in schools. I need to design a car so I’m researching different features. I am trying to find whether I should use a high or low nose cone. Your article is a bit confusing so I was wondering if you could dumb it down and maybe answer my problem. If you have any further information about F1 cars it would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Hi @yhyams !

Thank you for the reply!

Simpliy put, the final point of the summary is my conclusion.

  • It is inferred that the amount of air flow in the area from the nose to the center of the front wing influences the amount of air flow below the floor.

However, whether the high nose or the low nose is optimal depends on the conditions such as vehicle regulations and the engine power.

And there is a further information of my article about an old F1 car - “F92AT - Double Floor”.

Regards,
Yosuke

1 Like