Motörhead wrote: ↑20 Oct 2023, 12:07
BMMR61 wrote: ↑19 Oct 2023, 05:34
I believe the 60% model size in the Cologne wind tunnel was physically possible but in practice the size encroached too closely on the walls of the tunnel, which would give aberrations.
There was a jauntiness in a recent interview that Stella gave where he was being unusually optimistic about what they were seeing in the new tunnel and in the simulations. Not known for his excesses of optimism I felt Andrea was barely holding back his excitement about the 2024 car. (MCL61?) Of course there's every reason to believe that RedBull have had every chance to make major strides with their new car given how much good data they have collected from the RB19. Just how much and what kind of gains will be necessary to go wheel to wheel with Max next season is an interesting idea for discussion.
Of course one of the first things the McLaren team - especially the drivers - are looking for is greater drivability, specifically the transition of the car from braking to mid corner that ever driver going back to Sainz has complained about. Good correlation between Woking and the track gives good prospects for continuing and consistent performance gains - just what we have seen, really since Austria. Mercedes and others on the other hand have struggled to produce correlation between the factory's simulations and the actual performance at the track, leading to ups and downs in their relative performances. McLaren has by comparison, been relatively constant in their progress - excepting their lower downforce requirement deficiencies at Spa and Monza which they largely expected. If any lesson can be learned (in a general sense) from 2023 it's that having a car that's highly adaptable to all circuit types and tyre performance windows are the determining factors in championship standing. Some quite good tech overviews of the relative team performances, overlays etc can be found by a former RedBull data analyst here
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrrrakeF1
“I believe the 60% model size in the Cologne wind tunnel was physically possible but in practice the size encroached too closely on the walls of the tunnel, which would give aberrations.”
May I suggest another theory, if I may….
The Toyota wind tunnel is big enough to run a full scale car, if it were allowed in the rules. McLaren did run a 60% model. (See pictures in link below)
The theory is, that the tunnel was too big and/or it was too outdated to refine results.
They didn’t have a turntable which affected yaw/cornering numbers.
There were a few other problems with it also, due to its age where the tunnels walls were not ‘adaptive’ and were static.
All these things add up and considering, they didn’t do a half bad job.
The slow cornering had always been their Achilles heel. And that relates to the data of not having a turntable.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/toyot ... /10506134/
The new wind Tunnel has adaptive walls, that can be moved so the the velocity and the flow of the air when passing over the model is not affected by the fact it is in the tunnel. Cologne did not have them but the new tunnel does. The 50% model was optimal for the space that Toyota had, the 60% model's airflow were bothered by the proportions of the tunnel relative to the model, big or small I think can cause these affects.
As for the turntable, do you have anything that shows the new tunnel has a turntable?
Edit: Watching the video he does say that the model can move to replicate on track positions of the car. But they are very secretive about the inside of the tunnel.... interesting...
https://www.mclaren.com/racing/formula- ... nd-tunnel/
