Raptor22 wrote:Because by ramming air into the cockpit you can avoid much of the turbulence in this area. Now there is a steady but slow flow through the cockpit that exits around the driver and is picked up by the faster moving flow going over and aroudn the cockpit.
I can believe this, but if it's the case, why are the cooling holes at the very front so small? Is that a rule restriction or something?
I can't believe I'm actually starting to think this totally batshit carzy insane idea might actually be true. Just think how we all laughed at that loon who first proposed it a few days ago....
SLC wrote:The slot in the flap of the McLaren top rear wing (and the shark fin - roll hoop duct) is there to stall the rear wing at high speed. This decreases the car's overall drag by a couple of percent and will increase the straight line top speed by around 10-20kph.
Rumour is that it is a semi-active system controlled by the driver - something to do with the driver's knee covering a hole in a pipe in the cockpit which, in some way or another, acts as a pressure switch.
I'm just gonna bring that back to the top of the thread, from page 87: SLC this could be one of the best calls I've ever heard. For god's sake, please tell us where you got the rumour (if you're a mechanic but not for mclaren, if you work in woking diving supplies, if you work in the photocopy shop near the ferrari factory- cmon tell!)
At what stage should we start the 'guess how long until banned' thread?
Keep in mind that Scarb's article was sourced entirely from SLC's post. It's an interesting theory, and perhaps there's some truth in it, but as of yet, SLC is the only source.
He says that he works for a competing team.
imo, if the scoop were to activate a physical valve or flap, then it's clearly illegal and won't last too many races. If, on the other hand, there's some "butterfly wings" thing at work, where a small change in airflow is leading to larger happenings, and no moving parts are involved - well, then there's nothing in the rule book about that.
But of course, there are other, far simpler theories of how a blown wing can help them and none of them involve butterflies, valves, scoops or even driver knees. I'm sticking with those for the time being.
JB on autosport wrote:We didn't have an adjustable front wing for most of the winter so it's been quite difficult during long runs, because the way the car works now with high fuel loads you really are adjusting the front wing a lot.
So having an adjustable front wing in the last test was great, you are playing with that a lot as the fuel load comes down you are adjusting the front wing, and also through every stint you are adjusting the front wing. So that is key and the reliability of that front wing is also important.
Only got an adjustable wing for the Bahrain package. Not so well prepared McLaren.
"Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words." - Chuang Tzu
I guess the fancy-shmancy wing wasn't adjustable. I wonder if that was by design or necessity. Last year, most drivers said they never used it, so perhaps they thought it wasn't important. Or perhaps for testing purposes, they wanted the front wing fixed?
horse wrote:The biggest flaw in the snorkel for rear wing control argument, for me, was the snorkel's late appearance in testing. If this was the original control design (and I'm sure all that pipework would need a bit of thinking about in terms of access points on the tub) then why was it not in action from the very first test (as in day one)?
There was a snorkel from the valencia test, it was just a different one to the one they have now. More of a angled hole than a snorkel! We all thought it was a sensor at the time.
It seems to me that the amount of air wouldn't nearly be enough to achieve any of this. All it would do (in my untrained mind) is simply add a little bit of drag to the car
Sorry if I'm stating the obvious on this whole snorkel issue (pls be nice, this is my first post!)..... BUT
I notice that some have questioned why the snorkel is located to the left hand side of the tub, and have pointed out that a corresponding panel is symetrically opposite to it on the right hand side.
I also noticed that when they were using the flo-vis paint, fitted the various measuring devices etc. ALL of these steps have been taken on the left hand side of the vehicle only.
I wonder if they are doing so because:
1. Making one half of a "system" for evaluation purposes is cheaper, and given proper instrumentation would likely provide adequate data for analysis.
2. Fitting to only one "half" of the aero package could provide for baseline data from the un-modified side and variance data for comparison from the mod'd side. In fact, I suspect that if one side of the vehicle were subject to greater/lesser downforce, some form of inclinometer would give a suitable deflection? Similarly, strain gaugues mounted on both of the rear wing endplates would probably give a suitable reading for comparison of drag?
Whatever the "real" purpose of the snorkel/sharkfin-slot/etc. might be, it sure is interesting reading people's ideas!
Ta!
PS I wanted to quote people and show images from this thread but haven't worked out how to do that just yet!
PPS Love reading the posts on here, please all keep up the good work and sorry if I've wasted anyone's time!
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?
