Team: Paddy Lowe (TD), Tim Goss (DE), Martin Whitmarsh (TP)
Drivers: Lewis Hamilton (3), Jenson Button (4)
I don't see it. Is it not integrated into the top wishbone?timbo wrote:This is not a switch "back" they have steering arm really low, closer to the lower wishbone.Pup wrote:I think it's funny that the moment Ferrari switches to the McLaren style front suspension, McLaren switch back.
The running off into the distance bit? Yes, it is really.ell66 wrote:oh and your last statement is complete rubbish.
Back on topic......
A reminder to me to stay away from these crazy threads......
Pup wrote:I don't see it. Is it not integrated into the top wishbone?timbo wrote:This is not a switch "back" they have steering arm really low, closer to the lower wishbone.Pup wrote:I think it's funny that the moment Ferrari switches to the McLaren style front suspension, McLaren switch back.
Could you explain more about this damping effect? I would have thought that as the sidepod is a bluff body there will be some shedding from it anyway, therefore less sidepod, less shedding. I didn't realise you were restricted on beam wing angle, but perhaps it doesn't matter if the velocity magnitude of the air is greater because there is now a direct path?kilcoo316 wrote: The damping effect of the upper surface of the sidepod reduces turbulence to small scale stuff anyway; this "tunnel" will do something similar. Sure, there may be some BL growth, but drop the sidepod upper surface far enough so that is channeled underneath and clear of the beam wing.
No can do, your limited by design-space (regulations).horse wrote: If you lose effective angle of attack then make it steeper.
Isn't this going to happen anyway, even with conventional sidepods?kilcoo316 wrote: But I'm now also concerned about the vortex spilling off the upper nose surface during fast cornering - thats potentially going to run the length of the car now and screw up the beam wing (as well as being a low pressure zone in a very bad place).
Air cannot travel through a solid surface, therefore the velocity vector normal to the surface must decrease in magnitude the closer you get to the surface - that has a damping effect on the flow.horse wrote:Could you explain more about this damping effect?
Its not really that bluff... not in years.horse wrote: I would have thought that as the sidepod is a bluff body there will be some shedding from it anyway, therefore less sidepod, less shedding.
Tradeoff... not that I'm sure its gonna be any quicker.horse wrote: I didn't realise you were restricted on beam wing angle, but perhaps it doesn't matter if the velocity magnitude of the air is greater because there is now a direct path?
Isn't this going to happen anyway, even with conventional sidepods?[/quote]kilcoo316 wrote: But I'm now also concerned about the vortex spilling off the upper nose surface during fast cornering - thats potentially going to run the length of the car now and screw up the beam wing (as well as being a low pressure zone in a very bad place).
This is a boundary layer, I guess,kilcoo316 wrote: Air cannot travel through a solid surface, therefore the velocity vector normal to the surface must decrease in magnitude the closer you get to the surface - that has a damping effect on the flow.
so surely there will be some shedding of that boundary layer, no?kilcoo316 wrote:Its not really that bluff... not in years.
I see that there would be more interference from a conventional sidepod, but is that good? The flows still going to be pretty messy, right?kilcoo316 wrote: The conventional sidepod will break up the vortex (and that will perturbate back upstream too) - this approach wouldn't.
No, a boundary layer is more concerned with velocity tangential to the surface.horse wrote:This is a boundary layer, I guess
There will be growth, but no reason for BL separation.horse wrote: so surely there will be some shedding of that boundary layer, no?
A messy homogeneous turbulence that does nothing is better than structured turbulence that invokes areas of low pressure where you don't want it (i.e. on the vertical surfaces of a car on the outside of a turn and on the upper surfaces of the sidepod).horse wrote: I see that there would be more interference from a conventional sidepod, but is that good? The flows still going to be pretty messy, right?
My thoughts exactly just after reading a series of previous posts...adrianjordan wrote:Forgive me, but why are certain people on here so certain that McLaren have got it so wrong and furthermore, why aren't those people employed by F1 teams???
Ok, yes, thanks and thanks.kilcoo316 wrote:No, a boundary layer is more concerned with velocity tangential to the surface.
A messy homogeneous turbulence that does nothing is better than structured turbulence that invokes areas of low pressure where you don't want it (i.e. on the vertical surfaces of a car on the outside of a turn and on the upper surfaces of the sidepod).
I would just like to have a little 'told you so' moment! Dont think anyone believed me as my post was totally ignored with people more interested in what colour the car is! My source isnt just me making stuff up!!thestig84 wrote: Back to the car, my friend at the MTC has caught the odd glimpse. Said the nose is similar to last years, no red bull copying on that front (that was just based on a mould so a bit of guessing involved). The only other bit of interest he could make out was the radiator intakes. He drew them shaped like a L and the reverse for the other side.
