The profile looks similar to the one used in Turkey/Canada, but the slits (on the endplate) are diagonal now. Didn't notice that before... at least on the mclaren.747heavy wrote:MP4/25 @ Spa
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
McLaren have chosen some interesting design routes on their new competitor. In addition to our own technical analysis, McLaren's Tim Goss and Paddy Lowe explain why some decisions have been made in light of the regulation changes.
The profile looks similar to the one used in Turkey/Canada, but the slits (on the endplate) are diagonal now. Didn't notice that before... at least on the mclaren.747heavy wrote:MP4/25 @ Spa
Way to welcome somebody to the board...wesley123 wrote:thank you for repeating what i already said...
I've highlighted the relevant part in bold and the relevant subsection in italics.segedunum wrote:Hmmmm. I'll highlight a different part of that, shall I Ringo, because what you've highlighted is pretty irrelevant? :-ringo wrote: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."
Taken from the Spa threadtimbo wrote:Rear-view cameras mounted on a front wing gave wonderful view on FW aero today!
No...... I didn't. He mentioned nothing about a 'Monza wing', nor did he talk about 'typical' F-duct wings either.ringo wrote:No you misunderstood what he said.
What others? The Monza wing is merely a normal wing that a team takes to Monza with as much drag taken off as possible. The principles are exactly the same. We haven't even seen what wing they're taking to Monza.a Monza wing, which is much different, would be more efficient, not the others.
So....it's a compromise. However, as I'd explained if the system worked as it should in theory then they'd be able to run more wing for free and still run the system. They obviously feel they can't. Monza is the one track where you'd feel there would be a significant advantage to doing that if it was 'free', and they're having to think twice.The F duct principle wont work with a averaged cambered wing. The wing needs to be near vertical.
Why, and why are we talking about a 'typical' F-duct wing to try and get round this?It wouldn't make sense that the typical F duct wing is less efficient than a normal wing.
That is a great perspective view. =D> Any one seen pic of where on the front wing they mounted that camera as not to counteract any of the wing's complex air flow objectives? Perhaps it is mounted only for practice session for their pre race analysis.thestig84 wrote:Taken from the Spa threadtimbo wrote:Rear-view cameras mounted on a front wing gave wonderful view on FW aero today!
It obviously must be on the left camera aerofoil, except facing rearward.This bit I think you're getting wrong. It isn't the f-duct which causes the inefficiency, but the underlying shape of the wing. A steeper wing gives more downforce, but adds more drag; i.e., less efficient. The f-duct removes some of that inefficiency by removing some of the drag, which is why they use it. But there are limits to its effectiveness at both extremes, so there will be a point at lower angles of attack at which the ducting adds nothing, or too little to warrant the trouble, weight, etc. So McLaren aren't saying that the wing would be more efficient without ducting; they are saying that a more efficient wing doesn't need ducting. The requirements for Monza are probably right on the edge of requiring a wing that would benefit from ducting, hence McLaren's indecision at the moment.segedunum wrote:I've highlighted the relevant part in bold and the relevant subsection in italics."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."
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.
