After seeing the 2014 rules for the nose cone I'll have to admit that I was a bit disappointed. I made a post on it in the 2013/2014 changes section on this forum, for those who wish to see it. However, after seeing mhodgertt's response post, I was encouraged to do some research of my own into pointed noses vs. rounded noses. I was a bit surprised by the results, but I am satisfied with them. The best part is that you don't have to break any rules to get a clean break point on your ride!
He goes into good detail on what the effects are of each type of nose. In what I gained from this I learned that long pointed noses are very good for aero dynamics if you intend to go in a generally straight line. Rounded noses, as seen on most subsonic vehicles, are better because their resistance is lower to winds pushing from the sides.
In general it seems that having a good semi sharp point, as seen from the side of the vehicle, is good because the path is straight. In other words, the car will move at a relatively constant distance from the ground. AKA the ride height remains the same so the general path is always straight. In effect, a pointed end, when viewed from the side, is a good thing for aerodynamics. However, if you were to go airborne and add an angle of attack to the nose then the aerodynamic flow wouldn't be as smooth as with a rounded nose.
The story is a bit different from the top view. Having a good rounded or blunt curve, as seen from the top, is good because of wind and the resulting resistance. When the wind pushes on your vehicle from the side it tries to find the easiest path. Going around a curved point is easier than going around a sharp tip.
So... I think that for most (if not all) land vehicles; A pointed end from the side view and a curved/blunted end from the top view are a good general rule of thumb when designing the nose section of your vehicle.
All comments and opinions are welcome. Who knows? There is always more to learn. Thanks,
After seeing the 2014 rules for the nose cone I'll have to admit that I was a bit disappointed. I made a post on it in the 2013/2014 changes section on this forum, for those who wish to see it. However, after seeing mhodgertt's response post, I was encouraged to do some research of my own into pointed noses vs. rounded noses. I was a bit surprised by the results, but I am satisfied with them. The best part is that you don't have to break any rules to get a clean break point on your ride!
Here is a good website from a guy who had the same question on a similar application: http://lowriderpilot.blogspot.com/2010/10/round-nose-vs-pointy-nose.html
He goes into good detail on what the effects are of each type of nose. In what I gained from this I learned that long pointed noses are very good for aero dynamics if you intend to go in a generally straight line. Rounded noses, as seen on most subsonic vehicles, are better because their resistance is lower to winds pushing from the sides.
In general it seems that having a good semi sharp point, as seen from the side of the vehicle, is good because the path is straight. In other words, the car will move at a relatively constant distance from the ground. AKA the ride height remains the same so the general path is always straight. In effect, a pointed end, when viewed from the side, is a good thing for aerodynamics. However, if you were to go airborne and add an angle of attack to the nose then the aerodynamic flow wouldn't be as smooth as with a rounded nose.
The story is a bit different from the top view. Having a good rounded or blunt curve, as seen from the top, is good because of wind and the resulting resistance. When the wind pushes on your vehicle from the side it tries to find the easiest path. Going around a curved point is easier than going around a sharp tip.
So... I think that for most (if not all) land vehicles; A pointed end from the side view and a curved/blunted end from the top view are a good general rule of thumb when designing the nose section of your vehicle.
All comments and opinions are welcome. Who knows? There is always more to learn. Thanks,
Zach