Mclaren Mercedes MP4-25

[timbo]

The idea is same, the mclaren is only built more into the width and red bulls more into the height.

But when you look at it, you see that Newey tried to place cooling outlet as much out of the beam wing area as possible, while guys at Macca did their best to block it.

Looks more like a solution based on the problem.

[ringo]

Height is better than width too, aerodynamically. This is why the Air intakes are taller than they are wide.
The wing downforce is a function of width.

[forty-two]

Height is better than width too, aerodynamically. This is why the Air intakes are taller than they are wide.
The wing downforce is a function of width.

Perhaps McLaren are intending to achieve a benefit from this very fact?

If they are (or mean to) feeding hot air out from that massive vent, especially so in the two seperated sections on either side of the large hole in the middle, perhaps they deliberately spread this out sideways to throw this hot air at the beamwing (or under the main-plane).

Another possibility is that they have opted to reduce the distance the air has to travel having flowed past the radiators (to route it higher would increase the distance travelled from sidepod intake to outlet).

Alternatively, there might be packaging considerations what with the "stall mode" outlet from the top inlet from the F-Duct meaning that they somehow couldn't or didn't want to route that air upwards.

[forty-two]

New vs old

At least it's symmetrical now!

I think you got it the wrong way around. The one with 1 gill is the OLD cover. The one with a huge a**hole is the NEW cover.

Not quite sure who this was directed to. If me, then I meant that in relation to the previous iterations of the MP4-25 (and the MP4-24 in fact) where usually the left hand cooling outlet was larger than the right hand one.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[ringo]

Height is better than width too, aerodynamically. This is why the Air intakes are taller than they are wide.
The wing downforce is a function of width.

Perhaps McLaren are intending to achieve a benefit from this very fact?

If they are (or mean to) feeding hot air out from that massive vent, especially so in the two seperated sections on either side of the large hole in the middle, perhaps they deliberately spread this out sideways to throw this hot air at the beamwing (or under the main-plane).

Another possibility is that they have opted to reduce the distance the air has to travel having flowed past the radiators (to route it higher would increase the distance travelled from sidepod intake to outlet).

Alternatively, there might be packaging considerations what with the "stall mode" outlet from the top inlet from the F-Duct meaning that they somehow couldn't or didn't want to route that air upwards.

Well they know what they are doing. Maybe they're up to something here, with the cooling solutions. Routing it higher may choke the flow a little, and may require that the engine cover is a little wider. But i can't help but notice that back is not as tight as the RB, be it better auxiliaries packaging or engine footprint.

Anyhow, Hamilton says the car feels good. Button is ok with the balance. They say the car has no apparent weaknesses but simply lacks down-force compared to the RB.

I wonder if they will ever find this down-force this year?

[De Jokke]

Ah boy, that ass is huge. What's with the vertical holes on the side of the big hole?
All this is doing is making the beam wing less effective.

How much bigger is the mercedes engine package than the ferrari and renault. I truly believe that it's much bulkier.
The car looks like a submarine.

So funny , but true , Mclaren is really losing ground here trying to fix their EBD while the others are leaping away. If we're not competitive in SPA, it'll be very very difficult to still get those titles...

[marcush.]

as i understand they yet have to add the Q3 map to it ?


a few days ago I was still questioning the value of updates but looking at the obvious gains RedBull made in Barcelona and Silverstone ,they would now lap the entire field ...maclaren is a bit late with their deveelopment,having waited far to long with the front wing and they will pay the price for it ,as Ferrari will take away points from them .

[seinfeld]

guys a question regarding their new cooling package, it seems similar to the red bull.
it has a huge opening behind the engine and below the rear wing.

however my question is why don't they design channels from radiator/ oil cooler and run that down to the floor and diffuser. Its the perfect shape already to do it, big openings, then run them into small channels down to the floor that would speed the air up just putting it into channels if they can utilize all that air, essentially they wouldn't need so much rear wing angle.

[ecapox]

Might it be the F-Duct that they cannot remove? You see Ferrari and Redbull remove the F-Duct in places like Hungary and Monaco, but the Mclaren cannot remove it. The mandatory nature of their F-Duct might hinder them when high downforce is needed.

[wesley123]

indeed. The F-Duct is actually forcing the team not to run as high df levels as others, due to its idea of staling. The mclarens is an integrated part of the car, thus cannot be removed. I would love to see it at monza, i think mclaren will run an really small rear wing, no front splitter as the only way they are going to win there is on raw speed, if they aim for corner speeds they will loose, simple as that.

[Ciro Pabón]

If you cannot find one of the last posts in this thread, then listen: this is a thread about the McLaren Mp4/25 development. If you have any doubts about what to post here, check the thread title. Nice pictures are a plus, nice comments are welcomed; substantial, intelligent findings about the MP4/25 development are the best.

Discussions about race results, evil CEOs and opinions about why a car breaks are better posted in the proper race thread, where we're lenient and try to understand why members are carried away by arguments. Here, we're not.

If you're angry about a post, report it. Is this or your post will also be erased.

[Richard]

The F duct allows them to run more wing if they want to. It whould allow them to run very steep wings on twisty circuits.

Lets say the F duct stalls the wing to reduce the drag by an arbiraty 20% of drag parameter X. The idea is that you have a steeper wing for the corners (drag is say 110% X), then stall it on the straight to result in less drag than a conventional wing (drag is say 90% X).

However, both Button and Hamilton have commented in the last couple of races that they were running relatively low downforce settings.

What seems to be happening is that they aren't competitive with RB on bendy bits. So rather than take on RB where RB are strong, they have opted to run a conventional wing (say 100%X) then get a better advantage on the straights (80%X).

In simple terms, they can use the F duct to either play to their strength (straight line speed) or to overcome a weakness (bendy bits).

[Just_a_fan]

The problem is that you can't just crank up the rear wing without some means of increasing the front downforce to balance it out. That's not a problem initially because the front wing is effectively drag free anyway but the front wing affects the airflow to everything else on the car; eventually the front wing will cause reduced downforce at the rear and you're at the limit of what the car can generate.

One of the benefits of the flexi wing is that it allows for a big increase in front downforce with a much reduced adverse affect on the rear.

That's my take on it anyway.

[wesley123]

The problem is that you can't just crank up the rear wing without some means of increasing the front downforce to balance it out. That's not a problem initially because the front wing is effectively drag free anyway but the front wing affects the airflow to everything else on the car; eventually the front wing will cause reduced downforce at the rear and you're at the limit of what the car can generate.

One of the benefits of the flexi wing is that it allows for a big increase in front downforce with a much reduced adverse affect on the rear.

That's my take on it anyway.

Indeed, the gain in rear DF has to be added to the front too, else you get an lack of turn in, not what you want on tight tracks. What is also an option is that they simply cannot add more front downforce thus are forced to run too low rear downforce levels, not very efficient.

[Shaddock]

The problem is that you can't just crank up the rear wing without some means of increasing the front downforce to balance it out. That's not a problem initially because the front wing is effectively drag free anyway but the front wing affects the airflow to everything else on the car; eventually the front wing will cause reduced downforce at the rear and you're at the limit of what the car can generate.

One of the benefits of the flexi wing is that it allows for a big increase in front downforce with a much reduced adverse affect on the rear.

That's my take on it anyway.

Indeed, the gain in rear DF has to be added to the front too, else you get an lack of turn in, not what you want on tight tracks. What is also an option is that they simply cannot add more front downforce thus are forced to run too low rear downforce levels, not very efficient.

Not sure about this, the 25 has never looked like understeering at any track, if I were to guess I would say that the wing produces unacceptable levels of drag in a very high DF config.