Mclaren Mercedes MP4-25

[segedunum]

The only reason I see why the f-duct is'nt being usd there is due to just how flat the rear wings are at monza, i doubt they could even properly fit the thing on there.

If the system works as it should then they should be able to run enough wing to fit the system and the level of wing they run should not compromise them. They obviously can't do it. The normal 'tea tray' wings we normally see at Monza should bear no relation to the wing that McLaren could run at Monza if the F-duct system worked as it should.

Iv noticed you're about the only person iv noticed on this board continue to say it brings compromises, but i see ZERO eveidence of that anywhere.

I keep hearing this, but that's a bit of a half-arsed way of looking at things. We know downforce versus drag is a compromise and that is the default decision you are faced with. From that position I see no evidence at all that the F-duct system isn't a compromise, and the decision to remove it merely confirms that. McLaren have been so short of downforce relative to other teams that they've simply had no choice but to run it at most tracks.

[Afterburner]

I'd think it'd be better to compare the rear wing with their Canada wing rather than Hockenheim

Done, but it seems the wing it's pretty much the same

[ringo]

They always could. It was no big deal to remove it...

It is a big deal to remove it. It's an integral part of the car and they would have needed a different rear wing to cope without it. For other teams that hasn't been so much of a problem since they added it to their cars and had separate rear wings they could develop without the system.

A new rear wing is not something other teams haven't contended with, they make those all the time. The F duct is no more integral to the car than a front wing, a floor or a rear wing. In fact it's hard to pinpoint a part that is sewn into the philosophy of the car. Ferrari's ducted wheels are all i can think of.

The reason why they haven't removed it before was that it would be too much hassle to come up with different bodywork and a different rear wing, minus the F-duct components. Now at Monza the disadvantages obviously heavily outweigh the advantages and the hssle, to the point where they'd be heavily compromised with the system.

Well they came up with body work changes this year faster than any other team, and those had nothing to do with the F duct. Front wings, engine covers, diffusers, floors among other things.

Some like to believe the F duct has a compromise, but it doesn't.

It obviously is a compromise otherwise they'd be using it at Monza. To be able to run some wing with zero drag penalty would be a huge advantage there, and heaven knows McLaren need it, but they obviously can't achieve it.

The only compromise the F duct has is specific to Monza, and it's not really a compromise per say. Mclaren want more cooling for their engine at Monza. Removing the F duct creates more room in the engine cover and may allow them to have a bigger split around the back.

Without getting some numbers from McLaren it's difficult to ascertain whether the F-duct really allows them to run wing with no compromise, but this points the fact that there is a compromise.

I'd say it's a matter of cooling. The f duct will simply be wasting space sitting behind the engine, so even though it may not be detrimental, it might as well be removed since it's not helping any cause. I still see the f duct as an unfair advantage, i don't think it's disadvantages balance it's advantages.

I am interested to see the body work changes as well, but i don't expect much of a difference aside from removal of the snorkel, split in engine cover, and bigger cooling hole. New low drag wings and low drag diffuser.

[imightbewrong]

Regarding the F-duct not being a compromise, here is Jonathan Neale:

"It all depends on where you want to be for total aero efficiency," he said. "There tends to be a herd instinct in Formula 1 of where the downforce and end-of-straight speeds are set.

"Other teams have F-ducts and are performing well in straightline speed. If we think there's an advantage from it, we'll run it. If taking the weight of running it out and making the rear wing more efficient is effective, we'll do it. But it's all just fine tuning, it doesn't make a big enough difference to win or lose you a race."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86106

[thestig84]

He explained that although the F-duct gives a straightline speed advantage, the team is unsure at the moment whether the gain on such a low downforce circuit will offset the compromises of running the device.

Bad timing for that quote to come out for Ringo! I think Ill side with Neale's knowledge on this one.

[ringo]

Ahhh In fact good timing!

I already said the likely compromise is engine cooling at Monza.
The oil coolers are under the F duct.
I don't work for Mclaren, i can only use my judgement from what i see on the car. I never make an assumption about what can be removed, or what is too dificult or too complicated, without some knowledge of inference. It was thought that the team could never remove it, yet here they are removing the thing.
If i'm wrong i'll admit it. We're all only making guesses here, so there is no shame. However i stated my engine cooling case before the article came out.

Neale also has not gone into detail on what that compromise is. It may very well be what i stated, engine or oil cooling, or something as simple as saving a couple grams of weight. In the same way Whitmarsh chose his words wisely at Monaco, Neale could be doing the same exact thing.

Things are not as difficult or complicated as they seem to be.

Coincidentally the F1 teams comment on timely topics on the boards. It's either the Journos reading the boards then asking these questions, or the teams are reading the boards.

[ringo]

He explained that although the F-duct gives a straightline speed advantage, the team is unsure at the moment whether the gain on such a low downforce circuit will offset the compromises of running the device.

Bad timing for that quote to come out for Ringo! I think Ill side with Neale's knowledge on this one.

This is not Neale's word.

These are his words. The word compromise is not used.

"It all depends on where you want to be for total aero efficiency," he said. "There tends to be a herd instinct in Formula 1 of where the downforce and end-of-straight speeds are set.

"Other teams have F-ducts and are performing well in straightline speed. If we think there's an advantage from it, we'll run it. If taking the weight of running it out and making the rear wing more efficient is effective, we'll do it. But it's all just fine tuning, it doesn't make a big enough difference to win or lose you a race."

[marcush.]

mclaren front wing Spa



better now?

[raymondu999]

Surely you mean
http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/gall ... ?iID=49516

[PlatinumZealot]

Looks the same from last race.

[wesley123]

McLaren running the similair wing, though with diffrent end plates(with the slits a la Red Bull) [strike]I cant hotlink the pic, excuse me for that[/strike]


EDIT: front wing seems different too, the outer part of the upper plane seems removed

[747heavy]

MP4/25 @ Spa

[segedunum]

These are his words. The word compromise is not used.

Hmmmm. I'll highlight a different part of that, shall I Ringo, because what you've highlighted is pretty irrelevant? :-

"It all depends on where you want to be for total aero efficiency," he said. "There tends to be a herd instinct in Formula 1 of where the downforce and end-of-straight speeds are set.

"Other teams have F-ducts and are performing well in straightline speed. If we think there's an advantage from it, we'll run it. If taking the weight of running it out and making the rear wing more efficient is effective, we'll do it. But it's all just fine tuning, it doesn't make a big enough difference to win or lose you a race."

I've highlighted the relevant part in bold and the relevant subsection in italics.

How did you miss that? What he's saying there is that the system costs weight and, most importantly, that the rear wing will be more efficient without it, ergo that the F-ducted rear wing is less efficient. What he has described there is a compromise, whether you choose to believe that or not based on him not using the word 'compromise'.

Additionally, the last sentence used about it not being a big enough difference to win or lose the race is damning. Clearly they're having to compromise with the system because they don't believe it will be effective at Monza.

[Richard]

Ringo & segedunum - I can't see what you are arguing about. Everything that has more than one variable is a compromise.

Clearly, McL think that keeping F-duct was the compromise that gave them an overall benefit for the season so far. It appears that Monza has factors that tip the comprise the other way.

[wesley123]

for me an compromise means this; you are weighing multiple factors onto each other, these factors are different in each idea, such as Downfroce and Drag. The F-Duct doesnt got any negative factor on it, thus it isnt an compromise, for Monza it was different as it doesnt got any positive factor. Like i believe 747heavy said; The wing isnt past its critical angle where stalling is evident. Stalling an monza wing is nuts, as the wing in its current position doesnt do anything more then just blow. Due to the low angle of the wing(wich is a few degrees, compared to an regular wing wich is like 85 degrees to the horizontal plane), the flow out of the slit(wich i believe will be blown over the horizontal plane) will simply attach to the wing, thus actually increasing the drag. To stall it you will have to blow downwards, wich will also increase its drag. The engine cover itself also has its skin drag and weight, thus overall you only have negative factors, thus it isnt an compromise.