Register for the monthly e-newsletter here

Follow Racecar Engineering’s inane ramblings on twitter – @racecarengineer and @racecared



When the Lotus E22 was revealed in the form of a low resolution low detail rendering on Twitter it took many by surprise. Whilst most team have a single, low ‘ant eater’ nose the Lotus appears to have a pair of tusks (above). This approach is not unprecedented, the Audi R15+ LMP1 had twin front impact structures (below)



This was a good way for the team to get the aerodynamic effect it wanted as well as meeting the crash test regulations. However the 2014 Formula 1 Technical regulations state in 15.4.3 that

An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell. This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it. No part of this structure may lie more than 525mm above the reference plane. It must have a single external cross section, in horizontal projection, of more than 9000mm2 at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. Furthermore :

a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 250mm or less than 135mm above the reference plane.

b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference plane and no less than 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line.

But what it does not say is that a “single” impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell. In other words multiple structures could be used. This appears to be a loophole in the rules that Lotus has exploited but with only one low res, CGI it is hard to be certain exactly what the E22’s nose treatment really is. One alternative is that the car has a small piece linking the two structures which would make it a single structure, it could also bring some aero gains.

At the launch of the Toro Rosso STR9 James Key suggested that questions would be asked of the FIA as to the legality of the concept. “The Lotus nose needs clarification, but it’s a very clever idea, the question really is, is it within the spirit?” he asked openly. “We looked at it early on, when the car was quite a bit less mature than now, and in theory it was working well. But in reality we felt it had too many drawbacks, so we didn’t pursue that. We kind of understand where they’ve gone with it. It could be worth a revisit at some point when things have calmed down a bit. I don’t think it’s illegal, it’s just whether it’s in the spirit of the regs. Our interpretation of a similar idea was with a slightly different front of the nose, to the point where we were happy that it would be accepted within the spirit of the regs. I’m not saying the Lotus one isn’t, but it’s probably the most extreme out there.”

Read more here: Lotus E22 Technical analysis page