McLaren MP4-19 Mercedes

[Irvingthien]

Winter testing just started. i found some pix from f1 websites.The McLaren MP4/19 sure looks like the 18.but the rear end of the side pods of the 19 seems much smaller.the engie cover seems larger too because of regulations.the other cars looks the same.

[Driver8]

The best pics i could find were mainly of the 19, i agree though. The rear of the sidepods seem to taper off very quickly, and i see some differences in the nose shape. and of course the rear body work has changed significantly. McLaren seems to be one of the only teams with a "new" car out there, most of them are just testing components with intermediate cars i imagine.

[Steven]

Please read this article about the MP4/18 and MP4/19
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/69

I tried to give an overview of the most important changes between the MP4/18 and the MP4/17D and its older twin, the MP4/19.

[Irvingthien]

i looked at some of the pictures of the mp4-19 and noticed that from the front view the endplates of the front wing are bent inwards. by the way, why the F1 team's brake supplier didn't copied the brakes that were used by ferrari, these traditional brakes looks ancient on the mp4-19 and is less aeo-effecient.

[Monstrobolaxa]

I have always been convinced that this approach may be much more efficient than a very high nose, since it increases driver visibility, and generates downforce.

Usually a driver doesn't see the from of the nose...he only sees the top of the wheels....I remember a few years back when a new test driver was testing he ask everyone to get a new seat cause he couldn't se the front of the car....well....he was more or less publicly humiliated....with general laughter all around the track.

Well....I agree with the rest....just a not to tomba....you have a personal message

[Steven]

you may be right here, but I am absolutely positive that Schumacher once complained in the beginning of his Ferrari period that he had trouble with visibility, partially because of the high nose.

I also very much doubt that for instance in a Benetton anno 1996 you could not see the nosetip

[Monstrobolaxa]

Well it all depends on driver position....but for instance see the pic I posted.....we're looking trough the car cam...and you barely see the nose.....imagine the driver that is seated slightly lower.

[Steven]

an extra pic of the sidepod here:

[akbar21881]

this car has broke the lap record at valencia,so mclaren must have fixed the issues with mp4-18.

looking at this car,it seems that mclaren is pursuing design efficiency using a different route to anyone else.just wondering how ferrari and williams will react to this.

is the mp4-19 bargeboard fixed to the twin keel mounting?from my view,it is fixed to the keel and thus become a fixed aero device and cant be changed anymore.

does anyone has any technical pic of how the undernose shape like.is it drooped-nose like F2001?

also,I think the suspension mounting are protruding to the outer side of the nose if you view it from the front,and hence get in the way of the airflow.so the wave shaped front wing must have some shape to manage the airflow to reduce the intensity of the air that hit the keel.does anyone has any opinion on this?

[player]

Have anyone of you seen, what kind of a refueling hole there is in MP4-19? I have seen a few pictures of the side pods, but there isn't any noticeable marks of that whole. I have also noticed that there isn't very much space for that. So, if someone can find a picture, where that hole can be seen, please send a link or the pic to this forum.

[Guest]

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/photos/200 ... _125.shtml

[scarbs]

This car has broken the lap record at Valencia, so McLaren must have fixed the issues with mp4-18.

Never take any notice of testing times, If the car ran low fuel fresh tyres at either end of the day the lap times will always impress, It does however the prove the car is not a complete dog.

Looking at this car, it seems that McLaren is pursuing design efficiency using a different route to anyone else. Just wondering how Ferrari and Williams will react to this.

While the new Mac looks different to the rest of the grid, in fact McLaren have merely adopted a number of other practices from around the grid, compressed into one car. The result if it gels should be good, but the original 17 and 18 never gelled as predicted.

is The mp4-19 bargeboard fixed to the twin keel mounting? From my view, it is fixed to the keel and thus becomes a fixed aero device and can’t be changed anymore.

The keel only runs down to the suspension mounting, the bodywork ahead, behind and below it is removable and hence changeable through the season.
http://www.scarbsf1.com/macbboard.html

Does anyone has any technical pic of how the undernose shape like is it drooped-nose like F2001?

The underside of the nose on both the 18 and 19 is unlike any recent f1 car, it is more akin to the early nineties nose\wing shapes. The main plane and first flap element
are full width and hang from the drop plates under the nose section, but the second flap is split under the nose. This set up places the underside of the nose in much closer proximity to the wing than the F2001 for example. Splitting the second flap makes for a shorter chord, which will make less downforce and drag and upset flow less under the floor and into the sidepods.

Also, I think the suspension mounting are protruding to the outer side of the nose if you view it from the front and hence get in the way of the airflow. So the wave shaped front wing must have some shape to manage the airflow to reduce the intensity of the air that hit the keel. Does anyone have any opinion on this?

The twin keel set up for McLaren has always splayed the keels away from the chassis at angle, this creates less blockage under the nose and puts the mounting points where the bargeboards are placed. Hence making double use of the space. The wavy front wing (“W” shape) makes the most downforce in the middle of the outer sections this reduces the vortices near the endplates and improves flow under the middle of the car. Hence the keels are not placed in the main flow but instead direct this flow around the car.

Have anyone of you seen, what kind of a refuelling hole there is in MP4-19? I have seen a few pictures of the side pods, but there isn't any noticeable marks of that whole. I have also noticed that there isn't very much space for that. So, if someone can find a picture, where that hole can be seen, please send a link or the pic to this forum.

The refuelling flaps are horizontal between the driver and engine.


for a fuller summary of the 19......
http://scarbsf1.com/mac19.html

[akbar21881]

long answer from scarbs.Thanx mate.Its good to have an expert here.So now I have more question to ask.

You did mention that only the main plane and the first flap element are full length and the 2nd flap terminated at each side of the nose cone(its attached to the nose in the pic in your side).So which element actually producing lift(no..downforce actually ).Is it all three of them or only certain element?If all element is producing downforce..do all of them act as a single wing element with small spacing between them just to regenerate boundary layer or all three of them produce downforce in their own right?

Since the 2nd flap is split under the nose,this means that under the nose,there are only 2 wing elements(main plane+1st flap) right?Since there are in close proximity with the nose underside,there are only limited amount of space between flaps and nose.So the flow will expand just after the wing??This question may sound silly to knowledgable person but I'm so curious to know the answer.If the flow expand after the wing and hence creating a low pressure area and this results in a pressure difference between upper section of nose and undernose in the area just behind the wing.Correct me if I'm wrong but this will results in further downforce I think.Better still can anyone draw the cutaway diagram of the side view of the MP4-19 nose...


The winglet at the sidepod is for vortex management or does it produce downforce as well????From what I understand any shape with difference in length between upper and lower surface will always exerts a resulting force(lift or downforce).I read somewhere that the vortices produced by the winglet is very strong and Renault used it as a way to suck the air out from the chimney ,hence the close proximity between the winglet and chimney on R23.Still in the topic of vortex management,what I believe is the winglet purposes is something to do with flow management that will short after will hit the rear tyre.Maybe it is use to deflect the flow,or to create disturbance so that less drag is produced when it finally hit the rear tyre.

I'm looking forward for the answer.Thanks to those who interested to answer.

Hopefully Ferrari will come up with radical-looking car as well.It would be fascinating to see Mclaren and Ferrari fighting again.

[akbar21881]

oops!! one more question:

Small outlet is created at end the ducktail at the rear of the gearbox.How the heat reach that area in the first place???
Is is still part of the main bodywork?I thought the main bodywork is over at more or less in front of rear suspension apart from the top cover which extend further back to aid aerodynamic.

[Alex M3]

Very interesting with the front wing design acting more as a diffuser than a wing.

Could anyone further explain the sidepod cooling process (decompressing the air) and how the 19 may struggle with this? Is my understanding correct that the increasing voume of the sidepod accelerates the air exiting the rear? Is that it?