Columbia Formula Racing

Aero-Based Cooling via Nosecone Design

The Problem

  • Accumulator overheating during endurance runs

  • Cooling limited by poor airflow quality under the car

  • Existing nosecone caused flow separation and vortex losses

  • Under-floor air speed too low for effective convective cooling

The Challenge

  • Deliver clean, high-velocity airflow to the accumulator cooling surface

  • Improve cooling without adding fans or increasing drag

  • Maintain aerodynamic stability and rules compliance

CFD: Vorticity shed by the previous nosecone, colored by velocity (m/s).

Note: Red annotations mark major sources of loss on the nosecone caused by inadequate geometry continuity

The Solution

Fig. initial CFD to understand airflow behavior and guide design choices

Define Requirements

  • Estimated thermal load from the accumulator and identified air-side convection as the bottleneck

  • Defined airflow requirements: high-velocity, stable under-floor flow to reduce thermal resistance

  • Established aerodynamic constraints from FSAE rules and packaging limits

Fig. Parametric CAD of the Nosecone, variable geometry

Fig. Surface Modeling, Nosecone

Iterative CFD-Driven Refinement

  • Used CFD to evaluate velocity fields, pressure distribution, and vorticity

  • Identified and eliminated geometry-induced flow losses

  • Tuned nosecone geometry to generate a controlled vortex for floor sealing

  • Iterated design until airflow to the undertray was clean, stable, and repeatable

Fig. CFD, pressure gradient

Parametric Nosecone Design

  • Built a fully parametric SolidWorks model

  • Key variables included tip height, width, and inner radius

  • Used surface modeling with G2 continuity to maintain smooth airflow and prevent boundary layer disruption

Fig. CFD, surface streamlines

The Impact

Thermal Performance

  • Significantly increased mass flow to the accumulator cooling zone

  • Enhanced convective heat rejection by delivering higher-velocity airflow to cooling surfaces

Aerodynamic Performance

  • Eliminated geometry-induced flow losses at the nosecone

  • Generated a controlled vortex for effective floor sealing

  • Improved under-floor airflow quality and diffuser performance

System-Level Impact

  • Increased under-floor downforce (~10%), improving aerodynamic stability

  • Delivered cleaner, more predictable airflow to downstream aero components

Fig. CFD, Isosurface for a curl of 500Hz, colored by velocity. Velocity is given in m/s.

Fig. Velocity (m/s) streamlines highlighting the Y320 vortex

Conclusion

In stark contrast to the previous nosecone, vortices are well-managed with no major geometry-induced losses

  • A strong, controlled vortex is intentionally shed from the bottom of the nosecone at y = 320 mm (Y320 vortex)

  • The Y320 vortex seals the under-floor region, preventing external turbulent flow from intruding into the accumulator cooling zone

  • Controlled vorticity cleans up downstream tire wake, improving diffuser flow quality

  • Overall, the redesigned nosecone produces purposeful, stable vorticity rather than chaotic losses, resulting in improved aerodynamic and thermal performance

Next

Toyota, Autonomous Driving