He was referring to the wing which would be used at Monza. That's why the engineers are still considering it.segedunum wrote: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.
The principle does not hold on low cambered shaped wings. If you look in the wing stalling thread you would see why. We haven't seen what they will be taking to Monza, but looking on the past years, one could confidently guess what type of wing they will show up with.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.
Yes i know it could be called compromise at Monza specifically. By the way, your idea of compromise over the whole season is not relevant. Why? Because cars aren't in continuous parc ferme for the whole season. Your ignoring the fact that teams only do one race at a time, and can freely interchange parts between races. They would be more concerned with overall compromises in turns or sectors, than with overall races over the season.Nevertheless, he's still saying that the wing is more efficient without the F-duct, if by some stretch their 'Monza wing' works drastically different, so it's still a compromise. We're splitting some hairs there though - it's a compromise at some tracks and not others? I'd call that a compromise over the whole season if that was true, but that's as good as it gets.
There are countless parts, such as endplates, splitters etc. that have no weaknesses for one weekend, though may be unsuitable at another track. Teams don't care much for that; tracks and conditions change. It can't be helped that 1 part cannot be perfect for 19 of 19 races. It only needs to be advantageous on the day.
The system may work, but the balance between running more rear wing and top speed gained is probably within a small range of adjust-ability. There is no advantage if say the f duct can gain 0.5kph on the straight, while when it's not being used it's just taking up space on an already space limited wing.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.
Because you have been trying to prove that the F duct has draw backs for the past 12 races. Mclaren clearly wont use something that is overall less efficient. Monza is the only case where the F duct is seen as dead weight, all because the wing is not the wing typically used with the F duct.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.
I am not trying to get around anything, the part is intended to work with a near vertical wing. That is the principle of operation. That's just how it is.
So it simply wont work effectively on a lesser cambered, shorter, Monza wing.
I'm of the opinion that the F duct only needs to be an unfair advantage for a weekend at a time; that makes sense. Thus like other parts, Mclaren have designed it with the intent of being removable. It wouldn't be wise if The F duct was the key stone of the car's design or performance. It's not homologated like the tub.
(Please note that I'm just being mischevious here and I mean no malice)