so Macs also have the Renault type DDD feed..
the outer difusser feet are not connected to the underfloor?
Indeed but the car seems to have such gills oput of that box, thus in the floor itself, there is an simple cover over those holes just like renault. There is such thing as the flat bottom rule, but it is still an flat bottom in this case as there are no bends in it, only holes, and the parts masking that are only per regulations if im correct.BreezyRacer wrote:Well as for ride heights they all have the same 50 mm step to contend with. The most important thing in these designs to minimize turbulent flow and maybe it's just the camera angle but there seems to be some funky goings on at the beginning of the port. I'm still reserving judgments but a few things about the diffuser look questionable. Why extend the strakes into the inlet area? And now they have trimmed the outer strakes, but why have them at all. They only increase the chance for turbulence at that height. Lastly the outsides of the diffuser open up pretty radically which is good IF it doesn't cause turbulence. Maybe they are thinking the exhaust will help there, I don't know. In general it seems like they are trying to force the airflow around too much ..
I agree .. according to my understanding of the rules this open bottom of the port doesn't seem legal but I cannot imagine McLaren not having a legal clarification on it.wesley123 wrote:Indeed but the car seems to have such gills oput of that box, thus in the floor itself, there is an simple cover over those holes just like renault. There is such thing as the flat bottom rule, but it is still an flat bottom in this case as there are no bends in it, only holes, and the parts masking that are only per regulations if im correct.BreezyRacer wrote:Well as for ride heights they all have the same 50 mm step to contend with. The most important thing in these designs to minimize turbulent flow and maybe it's just the camera angle but there seems to be some funky goings on at the beginning of the port. I'm still reserving judgments but a few things about the diffuser look questionable. Why extend the strakes into the inlet area? And now they have trimmed the outer strakes, but why have them at all. They only increase the chance for turbulence at that height. Lastly the outsides of the diffuser open up pretty radically which is good IF it doesn't cause turbulence. Maybe they are thinking the exhaust will help there, I don't know. In general it seems like they are trying to force the airflow around too much ..
But those holes are legal, if im correct the floor itself is the reference plane, any bodywork above the plane must not be seen, else it is illegal. That is why these covers are there, same as renault, these are covers to cover the above bodywork, and These covers arent regulated as 'above' bodywork because they are in between the 5 cm higher step plane, hence this design is again driven by loopholes, but the design is in no way illegal, and it cannot be discussed about if it is legal or not, as it IS legal due to explained above. It is an smart move and we might even see this return next year as to work around the DDD ban.
Au contraire, mon ami: The foam sits there because the components are made from foam, sandwiched inside carbon-fibre. Foam is standard practice, but there are lots of other exotic products, depending on requirements, that you can stuff inside your carbon-fibre constructions, here's some:wesley123 wrote:That foam sits there because of the use of the fire extinguiser by the marshalls, it is just common practice to spray some on the damaged part, as it is most likely to get an fire out of there.